Statistics.
It’s now 71 yeas since I took my mathematics ‘O’ level (as it was then called) and over 20 years since I taught any maths, so I presume the curriculum has moved on a bit. I certainly hope so. In my day we spent a lot of time messing about solving simultaneous and quadratic equations, to “find x;” using trigonometry ratios discover the dimensions of figures and other such erudite activities; and spent very little time on statistics.
As a teacher of economics I spent a lot of time explaining yet again that a fall in the rate of inflation did not mean that prices had stopped rising.
Recently there have been some interesting revelations regarding statistics relating to immigration and race. A week or so ago a Reform spokesperson raised the alarm because apparently no fewer than one in eight of the inmates of our prisons were born overseas. Presumably this was meant to imply that people from abroad are disproportionately wicked and should either be stopped from coming here or be sent away asap.
Better informed heads gleefully pointed out that people born abroad constitute one in six of the UK’s population, so if they make up only one in eight of the prison population they are relatively more law-abiding than we natives.
In other words, Robert Jenrick’s daughters have more to fear from the native population that from immigrants.
In this week’s “New World” newspaper (formerly “The New European”) an article by a Sonia Sodha reminds us that “”Under international law anyone has the right to apply for refugee status having reached another country if they have a ’well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality , membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’”
She points out that a relatively small proportion of the world’s refugees set out to reach Europe. 73% are “hosted” by low and middle-income countries. Of those who do come to Europe most are “hosted” by other countries. The UK comes 17th in the Europe for asylum applications per population head, far behind countries like Greece, Germany, Austria and Switzer]and.
So why on earth do we make such a fuss? Really we ought to be a bit jealous: why don’t more want to come here and help raise the standard, quality and variety of our lives, instead of giving all these advantages to others, mostly better off then we are
Finally a letter in yesterday’s “Guardian” (15/08/25) from a Dr Bernard Gallagher examines the danger to “our women and girls” played by men of Pakistani origin or heritage in “Grooming Gangs.”
Of the 115,489 cases of child sexual abuse recorded by the Home Office in 2023, only 3.7% involved “group based contact offences” of which those with majority Pakistani-heritage would have been just a part. (Child-abuse is overwhelmingly a family affair.)
Persons of Pakistani heritage account for 5% of cases, whereas this group form 9% of our population over the age of 16. So once again this group is more virtuous than we natives.
Sadly, more attention to statistics in the school curriculum will not stop right-wing publicists jumping on to individual incidents and, amplified by their sportive press, exploiting them in the apparent hope of igniting the “tinderbox” they seemingly hope to explode into public disorder. But it might help.
What would help even more is politicians of other parties (and especially Sir Keir Starmer) boldly amplifying the truth rather than cosying up to those who distort it.
As a teacher of economics I spent a lot of time explaining yet again that a fall in the rate of inflation did not mean that prices had stopped rising.
ReplyDeleteThat has nothing to do with statistics, of course. That's calculus (second derivatives).
A week or so ago a Reform spokesperson raised the alarm because apparently no fewer than one in eight of the inmates of our prisons were born overseas. […] Better informed heads gleefully pointed out that people born abroad constitute one in six of the UK’s population, so if they make up only one in eight of the prison population they are relatively more law-abiding than we natives.
Both those statistics miss the real point though, which is that 'foreign born' is far too broad a category. We need it broken down by country of origin.
In this week’s “New World” newspaper (formerly “The New European”) an article by a Sonia Sodha reminds us that “”Under international law anyone has the right to apply for refugee status having reached another country if they have a ’well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality , membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’”
Of course there are problems with that law, both in its definition (it was written in a very different world and not everyone agrees it is fit for the modern era) and its interpretation.
For example, there have been cases of people arriving here from repressive regimes, and immediately going to protest in front of their embassies; and then claiming that, because of being observed protesting, they would be at risk of persecution were they to return. This is, to put it mildly, not example acting in good faith.
And there have also been cases of convicted sex criminals successfully claiming asylum on the grounds that, were they to return home, they would be at risk because of the way their home country treats sexual offenders. Surely you cannot reasonably argue that someone who puts themselves at risk because of their own criminal conduct is deserving of our help, and such people should instead be sent home and, if they are promptly lynched because they could not keep it in their pants, that is entirely their own fault and no moral stain on us?
So why on earth do we make such a fuss? Really we ought to be a bit jealous: why don’t more want to come here and help raise the standard, quality and variety of our lives, instead of giving all these advantages to others, mostly better off then we are
ReplyDeleteDo you have any reason to think these arrivals do 'raise the standard, quality and variety of our lives'? Recently the government has begun releasing statistics indicating how much various types of immigrants either contribute or consume to Britain over their lifetimes. One suspects that it will turn out that, considered n the round (ie, including use of public services etc) these refugees do not raise the standards of our lives but rather cost us.
Which is not to say we shouldn't help when we can: but then we're back to questions of definition and interpretation (for example, if we are clear that our hospitality to refugees is an act of charity and that they owe us, not we then, then we can be clear that any refugee who abuses our hospitality by committed a crime while here can be, once their full punishment for that crime is served, deported back whence they came).
Of the 115,489 cases of child sexual abuse recorded by the Home Office in 2023, only 3.7% involved “group based contact offences” of which those with majority Pakistani-heritage would have been just a part. (Child-abuse is overwhelmingly a family affair.)
No, child abuse is not overwhelmingly a family affair: the vast majority of abusers are not related to the child victim by blood; rather they are step-fathers, step-brothers, in-laws or mothers' boyfriends.
But apart from that, it's likely the Pakistani-heritage offenders were the majority of the group-based offenders, as that is a particular MO of the Pakistani-heritage gangs and intra-household sexual abuse (ie, the common case of a mother's boyfriend abusing the daughter) tends to be solitary.
Also note when looking at these statistics that it's misleading to claim that 'the vast majority of sex offences are by people known to the victim' as if that means the problem of grooming gangs is a small part of the problem. They way these gangs work is that they befriend vulnerable girls an become their 'boyfriends', give them drink and drugs, and then pass them around. This is the 'grooming' part of 'grooming gang'.
That means that when these crimes are recorded (and a lot weren't recorded, and it is now being revealed that that was often because police officers were working with and shielded the gangs: two police officers have recently been charged with aiding gangs, and another was killed in suspicious circumstances while under investigation) they were recorded as 'offender known to victim'.
You seem to miss the point of the post, which is that , just as one swallow does not make a summer, one or even a few incidents should not be used to demonise a whole community or category of people
ReplyDeleteYou seem to miss the point, which is that if a person, or a group, are here because we in our charity are trying to help them, then that person or that group have a responsibility to both be honest and to behave themselves; and if they aren't honest or they don't behave themselves then we are perfectly entitled to get rid of them.
DeleteImagine the refugee is a person who knocks on my door at night, asking to be let in because a vicious mob is out for his blood. Of course I ought to let him in and give him shelter. But if it turns out that he bought the mob on himself by his criminal behaviour, or if he starts smashing up my furniture, then I am perfectly entitled to chuck him out and let the mob tear him limb from limb, aren't I?
Actually I think what we might be seeing here is the same absolutely planet-sized sense of entitlement you displayed when you declared that you thought you had the right to go and live in any country of the world, at any time you wanted to.
ReplyDeleteSee, if I ever found myself in the position of having to flee with nothing but the clothes on my back, and some other country was kind enoguh t take me in and give me safe harbour, I would be grateful to that country for as long as I lived. The whole time I was there I would try my best to never cause any problems, to help out in any way I could. I would be constantly remind myself that I was not at home, and that I owed the people who were graciously extending me their hospitality a debt that I could never repay, but that I had the obligation to constantly try to make good on nevertheless.
Whereas you seem to think that if you became a refugee you should be able to rock up to a country of your choice, knock on the border, demand to be let in and, once there, immediately set about treating the place as if it were your own, and that they should have to treat you as if you were one of them. You would put your feet up on the sofas, declare that you didn't like the wallpaper and tear it down to redecorate, start orderng people about because you think you could see how the place could be better run.
From which I think we can conclude that the people on your side of the debate are ungracious, entitled boors who are not fit for polite society, and the people on my side are considerate and generally the sort of guests you would like to have.
Taking in refugees is not charity, but the law; a law which we helped to devise and is our duty to honour.
ReplyDeleteTaking in refugees is not charity,
DeleteOf course it's charity. Helping those in need is charity, based on Christian values.
but the law; a law which we helped to devise
It's ot a law, it's a treaty; a treaty which we helped write, indeed, but on to which we signed up voluntarily (out of charity) and in which our continued participation is, also voluntary.
The question is whether we ought to continue to participate, given (a) the world is a very different place from what it was when we signed up and (b) the traty s increasingly being interpreted in ways that go beyond what we signed up to.
and is our duty to honour.
Do those who accept charity not have duties too? I think they do, do you think they have none?
I suspect the overwhelming majority of those who receive permission to settle here contribute enormously to our well being and are very grateful for the opportunity. The doctors and dentists who treat me, the chap who delivers my papers, the ones who clean my car, the sopranos and altos who sing with me in the church choir, our organist and sundry others all do a very good job and seem very happy to be here. Enjoy!
DeleteI suspect the overwhelming majority of those who receive permission to settle here contribute enormously to our well being and are very grateful for the opportunity.
DeleteLet’s leave aside for the moment the proportions, and that you are conflating legal economic migrants, illegal economic migrants and refugees, and concentrate on the fact that there are clearly some who are not grateful and do not contribute (like the ones in prison).
What do you think ought to be done with them?
Of course, in your comfortable middle-class bubble you would never ever come across them. Your daughter will never be targeted by a grooming gang (although sore might be blown to bits at a concert). So I suppose you are happy just dumping all the misery on people less fortunate than yourself.
As the data on the original post show, immigrants pose less danger to the public than we natives and therefore require no special treatment.
ReplyDeleteAs the data on the original post show, immigrants pose less danger to the public than we natives
DeleteThey don’t show that, because they aren’t broken down by origin. Surely if you are going to go on about statistics you must realise that?
and therefore require no special treatment.
If you invited a guest into your home and they started smashing the furniture up, would you treat them the same as if one of your children had a tantrum and started smashing the future up?
Obviously not: you’d throw thr guest out. You wouldn’t throw your child out because your child is your responsibility.
Similarly, crimes committed by natives and foreigners are different because every crime committed by a foreigner is a crime committed by a guest; someone who we made a choice to allow into our home.
So if that guest proves that they do not respect the rules, do you not think they should be treated as you would treat a guest who started smashing up your house?
The data show that immigrants are less likely, as you put it, to "smash up the furniture," than the native population so need no special treatment. I'll leave it there.
ReplyDeleteThe data show that immigrants are less likely, as you put it, to "smash up the furniture," than the native population
DeleteAnd that is not true because, as I wrote above, that data isn’t broken down by country of origin. Again, if you claim to know statistics I would think you would know that, yet you keep ignoring that point.
But also you keep ignoring that it’s not about ‘likelihood’. Foreigners do commit crimes, that is a fact. The question is how we react when they do, both in terms of the individual and in terms of how we change our policies to avoid it in future.
so need no special treatment.
And again, they are already getting special treatment in that we are allowing them to live here when we don’t have to (e we have signed up to treaties, yes, but treaties are voluntary and we could resile from them at any time; and also how we interpret those treaties even while we remain signed up to them is a matter of choice). That means any crime committed by an foreigner is one that happened because we made the conscious choice to allow that person to be a guest in our home.
That means it was an avoidable crime in an important way in which a crime committed by a native was not avoidable.