Denial - it's not....

... big and it's not clever (hands up who thought I was going for the "river in Egypt" line?) [oh, wait, I kinda just did]

Apparently another of our glorious Home Office leaders, Baroness Scotland, has decided that there is no such specific thing as "black-on-black" violence and that gun crime is no more a young-black-male thing than a young-white-male thing. The data, apparently, do not support this being disproportionate to one ethnic group over another.

So why then do we have a large, handsomely-budgeted operation running to combat such crime? Why do Baroness Amos (another senior black female peer) Trevor Phillips (erstwhile commissioner of the Commission for Racial Equality, now the chair of the Commission for Equality & Human Rights) and Lee Jasper (London Mayor's police advisor) as well as the combined tactical brains of the Met Police all think that it DOES exist? Even Diane Abbott agrees on this one!!

Somebody is being disingenuous, but who (or just plain old-fashioned "wrong")?

Does Ma'am Scotland think that young black men are neither disproportionately the victims of gun crime, or is it just the shooting and not the victimhood that we are expected to deny for the sake of the Newspeak endemic in our, increasingly Orwellian society?

The implication of all this was that it is racist to suggest that young black men are more involved in gun crime than other groups. But why stop there? After all, no-one's saying that young black women are going around shooting people [sexist]. And why not deny other things just in case there's some perceived racial or ethnic bias? Perhaps it wasn't actually mainly white people who enslaved Africans 200 years ago - after all, the majority of white people 200 years ago were not any part of the slave trade, and whilst they probably on the whole didn't have lives quite as crappy as black slaves did, they certainly weren't all living on a cloud eating ambrosia either. So why pick on white people, or British people for that one?

Perhaps, in the 70s and 80s, Irish terrorism wasn't really committed by or on behalf of Irish people either. Perhaps the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor (sic) wasn't really carried out by the Japanese [racist], just by some random people who happened to be living in the Japan area at that time.

I am NOT claiming any moral equivalence here, by the way, just pointing out that sometimes, however distasteful, we might have to recognise that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, has big flappy feet, a large bill, says "quack" and swims rather well, it is - in all likelihood - a bloody duck.

If young black men are really disproportionately victims of gun crime, and it's okay to point that out (and probably, thinking about it, institutionally racist to ignore and not try to tackle) then can we acknowledge too that some of these young lads are also disproportionately doing this sort of crime without the bony finger of racism being pointed our way?

Or if, in fact, this is not the case at all, we should surely, morally, be disbanding Operation Trident and its like and using the money elsewhere?

Quack.

PC "Ducky" Bitseach.