viernes, 30 de marzo de 2018

Opaque or obvious observations...






Reading Alasdair Palmer's article "The stop and search race myth" in The Spectator earlier this week a number of points came as no surprise (Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, wanted to look good with black voters, special advisers editing out important info, SJWs critical of the police’s racist use of stop and search, the stats showing many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority etc.) but at least one point was a surprise (although obvious when considering the title of the article!): it has actually been shown that it really is a myth. Palmer names - but doesn't link to - THIS report, by P.A.J. Waddington and others: 'In Proportion: Race, and Police Stop and Search'...but this doesn't stop politicians pedalling lies.



It has long been obvious to everyone - EVERYONE - except lefty liberal dimwits, lying politicians, IYIs, guilty or blinkered BAME etc., that stop and search is always going to be bias against the profile of those committing the crime. Why stop ginger grannies when 'a big black dude' was the assailant? That said, on those grounds alone, all the innocent big black dudes would get pissed off if they kept getting stopped and searched. Looking at the image to the above, you'd think, hey, that's racist: indeed, in some years it was 6 or 7 times more likely to get stopped if you were black. That image is Fig 3 on page 8 of THIS Police Federation report from 2012; nearly a decade old data but things haven't changed that much overall.

HOWEVER, this supposed race bias is countered and proven false when one considers (a) WHEN the searches are done and (b) WHERE the searches are done e.g. from Palmer:


"[The team of Home Office researchers]... discovered that when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population."

Oops. Somewhat supporting this IMHO is a more recent report from 2015: 'Stop and Search: Exploring Disproportionality' where in Leicestershire the perceived (by the police officers) ethnicity was of those stopped was 68% White European, 19% Asian, 10% African Caribbean etc., (Self‐reported ethnicity had high agreement with officer perceived ethnicity). i.e. represents what's there in front of them, not police racial bias.




This is reminiscent of Overt omissions, obvious outrage: the lies surrounding the stats re police killing blacks in the USA where the numbers are skewed: "These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."

Opaque or obvious observations...


Reading Alasdair Palmer's article "The stop and search race myth" in The Spectator earlier this week a number of points came as no surprise (Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, wanted to look good with black voters, special advisers editing out important info, SJWs critical of the police’s racist use of stop and search, the stats showing many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority etc.) but at least one point was a surprise (although obvious when considering the title of the article!): it has actually been shown that it really is a myth. Palmer names - but doesn't link to - THIS report, by P.A.J. Waddington and others: 'In Proportion: Race, and Police Stop and Search'...but this doesn't stop politicians pedalling lies.

It has long been obvious to everyone - EVERYONE - except lefty liberal dimwits, lying politicians, IYIs, guilty or blinkered BAME etc., that stop and search is always going to be bias against the profile of those committing the crime. Why stop ginger grannies when 'a big black dude' was the assailant? That said, on those grounds alone, all the innocent big black dudes would get pissed off if they kept getting stopped and searched. Looking at the image to the above, you'd think, hey, that's racist: indeed, in some years it was 6 or 7 times more likely to get stopped if you were black. That image is Fig 3 on page 8 of THIS Police Federation report from 2012; nearly a decade old data but things haven't changed that much overall. HOWEVER, this supposed race bias is countered and proven false when one considers (a) WHEN the searches are done and (b) WHERE the searches are done e.g. from Palmer:
"[The team of Home Office researchers]... discovered that when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population."
Oops. Somewhat supporting this IMHO is a more recent report from 2015: 'Stop and Search: Exploring Disproportionality' where in Leicestershire the perceived (by the police officers) ethnicity was of those stopped was 68% White European, 19% Asian, 10% African Caribbean etc., (Self‐reported ethnicity had high agreement with officer perceived ethnicity). i.e. represents what's there in front of them, not police racial bias.

This is reminiscent of Overt omissions, obvious outrage: the lies surrounding the stats re police killing blacks in the USA where the numbers are skewed: "These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."

jueves, 29 de marzo de 2018

Officially out...




Officially out of the E.U.: later today in exactly one year the UK will exit from the European Union. If you're looking at this after 29th March 2018 don't be alarmed, the screenshot below is of a handy countdown which can be found HERE.






Officially out...


Officially out of the E.U.: later today in exactly one year the UK will exit from the European Union. If you're looking at this after 29th March 2018 don't be alarmed, the screenshot below is of a handy countdown which can be found HERE.

miércoles, 28 de marzo de 2018

Outstanding opinion on offence...




Three cheers for David Coburn MEP. At last an elected UK official raises his head above the parapet. The UK taking the first steps towards Fascism. Read his full statement HERE; two snippets below.










Indeed: "Comedian found guilty of causing offence!", "It was a fucking joke you cunts"; hilarious. Ruling "Context and intent are irrelevant"...Sinister.

Outstanding opinion on offence...


Three cheers for David Coburn MEP. At last an elected UK official raises his head above the parapet. The UK taking the first steps towards Fascism. Read his full statement HERE; two snippets below.


Indeed: "Comedian found guilty of causing offence!", "It was a fucking joke you cunts"; hilarious. Ruling "Context and intent are irrelevant"...Sinister.

jueves, 8 de marzo de 2018

Obluctation over obmutescent oblivescence...





'Our destiny is frequently met in the very paths we take to avoid it.'



 Jean de La Fontaine, Book VIII (1678–1679), fable 16 (The Horoscope)







Global Populism Rises To Highest Level Since World War II [Zero Hedge]...of course liberals are blaming the Russians or anything rather than themselves. Looking at the article the other image - "Populism Index" - should give us all cause for concern: not since the late 1930s to 1941 has it been so high.

Of course one could blame the 'populists'* but that would be wrong: certainly in Europe we should blame the EU and all the anti-liberal anti-democratic anti common sense scumbag politicians who have brought us to this crux. Don't blame the effect, blame the cause. It could still be stopped, literally within weeks if the right decisions were to be taken. The fact that the necessary steps are so obvious yet no politician from any leading nation is taking those steps means only one thing: they want a race war and they want a holy war.



* "Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite" [Wiki]. Anyone see anything wrong with that?

Obluctation over obmutescent oblivescence...


'Our destiny is frequently met in the very paths we take to avoid it.'

 Jean de La Fontaine, Book VIII (1678–1679), fable 16 (The Horoscope)


Global Populism Rises To Highest Level Since World War II [Zero Hedge]...of course liberals are blaming the Russians or anything rather than themselves. Looking at the article the other image - "Populism Index" - should give us all cause for concern: not since the late 1930s to 1941 has it been so high. Of course one could blame the 'populists'* but that would be wrong: certainly in Europe we should blame the EU and all the anti-liberal anti-democratic anti common sense scumbag politicians who have brought us to this crux. Don't blame the effect, blame the cause. It could still be stopped, literally within weeks if the right decisions were to be taken. The fact that the necessary steps are so obvious yet no politician from any leading nation is taking those steps means only one thing: they want a race war and they want a holy war.

* "Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite" [Wiki]. Anyone see anything wrong with that?

sábado, 3 de marzo de 2018

Outstanding Osborne...







It looks a bit blurred; click to enlarge for clearer view...

Britain is now running a current budget surplus. OK, I know it wasn't all George Osborne but credit where it is due. An outstanding achievement, albeit slightly later than originally forecast. And guess what, the BBC are actually reporting it, although not on their Home Page, nor main News page and already a long way down the list on the UK Politics page. And, as it is the BBC, with the twist of the knife in the headline link "Cameron and Osborne hail austerity plan" giving it the 'evil' look that allows Labour fools in with such ridiculous comments: "Labour accused them of 'egotistical boasting' while families suffered." FFS, can't think why cuts in spending were necessary, can you, Labour Party? And the plan was NEVER 'austerity' anyway, merely cutting back gross excess and trimming. And when they claim local authorities are closing libraries due to nasty Tory austerity cuts ask them why the same Councils have gambled with public money (hundreds of millions in savings in Icelandic banks revealed after the crash, by 2014 they had most back) and are currently spending hundreds of millions on "punting like drunken sailors" on "hedge fund-style activity". [2017 FT, requires registration]




Anyway, [edited] research published by the International Monetary Fund "Climbing Out of Debt, A new study offers more evidence that cutting spending is less harmful to growth than raising taxes" [LINK] [PDF] said Britain set an example for other countries to follow in slashing the deficit by cutting public spending, rather than raising taxes. [DT] "Our conclusion runs against the basic Keynesian message, which implies that spending cuts are more recessionary than tax increases"... "On the contrary, our study confirms that expenditure-based plans generally were less harmful to growth than tax-based plans.".



Well done David Cameron, well done George Osborne and team. Well done the Conservative Party.



Despite Brexit :-)

Outstanding Osborne...


It looks a bit blurred; click to enlarge for clearer view...
Britain is now running a current budget surplus. OK, I know it wasn't all George Osborne but credit where it is due. An outstanding achievement, albeit slightly later than originally forecast. And guess what, the BBC are actually reporting it, although not on their Home Page, nor main News page and already a long way down the list on the UK Politics page. And, as it is the BBC, with the twist of the knife in the headline link "Cameron and Osborne hail austerity plan" giving it the 'evil' look that allows Labour fools in with such ridiculous comments: "Labour accused them of 'egotistical boasting' while families suffered." FFS, can't think why cuts in spending were necessary, can you, Labour Party? And the plan was NEVER 'austerity' anyway, merely cutting back gross excess and trimming. And when they claim local authorities are closing libraries due to nasty Tory austerity cuts ask them why the same Councils have gambled with public money (hundreds of millions in savings in Icelandic banks revealed after the crash, by 2014 they had most back) and are currently spending hundreds of millions on "punting like drunken sailors" on "hedge fund-style activity". [2017 FT, requires registration]

Anyway, [edited] research published by the International Monetary Fund "Climbing Out of Debt, A new study offers more evidence that cutting spending is less harmful to growth than raising taxes" [LINK] [PDF] said Britain set an example for other countries to follow in slashing the deficit by cutting public spending, rather than raising taxes. [DT] "Our conclusion runs against the basic Keynesian message, which implies that spending cuts are more recessionary than tax increases"... "On the contrary, our study confirms that expenditure-based plans generally were less harmful to growth than tax-based plans.".

Well done David Cameron, well done George Osborne and team. Well done the Conservative Party.

Despite Brexit :-)