Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 2

The following is the second part of a four-part analysis of Muslim crime in Britain. It was originally published as a pdf on the English Defence League website. Part 1 is here.


A Consideration of Muslim Crime in the UK
and the Response of the British Authorities

Part Two

By Pike Bishop

III. Two Rhapsodies on the Theme of Muslim Crime

Pimping

Among the most disgusting examples of dereliction of duty on the part of our ‘law enforcement’ apparatus is that which pertains to the pimping of underage white girls. Of course, the usual disclaimers must be made here: it is not only Muslims that pimp out these unfortunate white girls, and not all Muslims do pimp them out. However, insofar as one can discern from the limited amount of information that makes its way into the mainstream media, there are certain groups of Muslims who appear to be particularly culpable in this regard. We acknowledge the uncertainties here, and the great difficulty in trying to develop any accurate picture of exactly what is going on. As we will see, however, this lack of information is unlikely to be an accident.

Though we use the term ‘pimping’ to describe the practice under examination here, the fact of the matter is that it consists of the dragging of underage white girls into a life of sexual slavery and violence. Those who are interested in learning about it in more detail are invited to read the September 2007 Times article Mothers of Prevention by Julie Bindel⁴ and to watch the March 2008 edition of Panorama, ‘Teenage Sex for Sale’.⁵ We urge all those who read this document to familiarize themselves with the relevant material, the better to understand the nature of the multicultural paradise and glittering rainbow nation that is modern Britain.

Here, we will content ourselves with a brief summary of the essentials. Pakistani drug-dealing gangs concentrated in the north of England are orchestrating a system in which underage white girls ‘just happen’ to make friends with Pakistani boys of roughly their own age. They are then introduced to older ‘cousins’ of these boys, who are the actual pimps, and who, in time, become their new ‘boyfriends’. These men use a wide variety of techniques to control the girls and induce them to prostitute themselves out to the Pakistani community. These techniques include, but are not limited to, pretending to need money, threatening the girls, drugging them, and beating them with iron bars. Through a combination of a reluctance to appear ‘racist’ and fears of race riots of unspecified type, the British police seem to have devoted rather less than their full energies to this matter, with the result being that the Pakistani Muslim criminals in question are essentially engaging in all these criminal activities with impunity.

It is hard to avoid the impression that there is a slice of the vibrant, bustling Pakistani Muslim community of the UK that simply considers the native British population to be a resource, existing for no other reason than to be chewed up and spat out by vibrant, bustling Pakistani Muslim predators like themselves, for their sexual pleasure and financial gain. And it is far from obvious that this slice is some sort of anomaly in this population. On the contrary, the Pakistani organized crime gangs in question and their Pakistani customers seem to range from the very young (the teenage boys used to befriend the girls), to their slightly older ‘cousins’ (used to start pimping the girls), to older men still (those orchestrating these activities in the background), with the girls’ clients presumably running the gamut from young to old.

That is the depth of the slice. What of its breadth? Well, let us consider the matter. There are approximately one million people of Pakistani origin in the UK. Let us assume, not unreasonably, that half of them are male. If 5,000 child prostitutes exist in the UK,⁶ and the problem is particularly bad in the north of England, which appears to be the epicentre of the phenomenon, then there are perhaps 2,000 girls being prostituted there by Pakistanis (we will not dignify them by calling them Britons of Pakistani descent). How many times, on average, has each of these girls been raped by Pakistani ‘clients’? 400? 500? How many individual ‘clients’ have they been raped by? 100, with each having raped them 4 or 5 times, on average? What is 100 multiplied by 2,000? 200,000? Does that mean that 200,000 Pakistani males, or 40% of the total, have raped underage white girls in the UK? Well no, probably not, as some Pakistani males have presumably raped more than one girl. So shall we reduce our estimate by a (fairly arbitrary) factor of two to take into account this redundancy in the Pakistani raping of underage white girls? Why yes, let us do that, and generously conclude that only 100,000 Pakistani males have raped an underage white girl.⁷

Now, 100,000 is one fifth of 500,000. This means that, according to our estimate, one in five of the male Pakistani population of the UK is the rapist of an underage white girl. Bearing in mind that the fraction of the Pakistani population under the age of 18 is very large, and that these rapes will be predominantly committed by the population aged 18 and over (who number approximately 330,000), we must conclude that somewhere in the region of one in three adult Pakistani males is the rapist of an underage white girl. Having concluded this, and bearing in mind the various other forms of criminality and sedition that seem to be prevalent amongst ‘British’ Pakistanis that we have not even considered here, would it be unreasonable to suppose that the Pakistani Muslim population of the UK is in fact, taken as a whole, an enemy of the British people?

We seem to have arrived at a rather unfortunate conclusion. Surely there must be a mistake in our reasoning, or a mistaken premise? Very well, let us take a stab at this puzzle from a different angle. According to the information available in the mainstream media, pimping out one underage girl for one year can bring in £300,000 to £400,000. Let us take the low end of the estimate (£300,000) and see what we can conclude from it. How much does one have to pay to a pimp to be able to rape the girl under his ‘care’? Let us assume it costs £100 a time. This means that a girl being pimped out is being raped 3,000 times a year, or roughly 60 times a week. Returning to our earlier estimate of 2,000 girls being pimped out by Pakistanis, we see that there are six million occasions each year upon which a Pakistani male rapes an underage white girl in this fashion. Now, we established above that the population of adult Pakistani males in the UK will be in the region of 330,000. Six million divided by 330,000 gives us a rounded-down figure of 18, which means that the average adult Pakistani male in the UK rapes an underage white girl or girls 18 times a year. But surely there must be many adult Pakistani males who are not involved in this crime? Why yes, there must. Let us be generous and assume that half of all such people are not involved. We must therefore conclude that the remaining 50% are perpetrating an average of 36 such rapes a year. Perhaps two thirds of all adult Pakistani males are uninvolved, leaving the remaining one third to rape underage white girls on an average of 55 occasions⁸ a year, or more than once a week.

Try as we might, we cannot refrain from concluding that the male Pakistani population of the UK, as a whole,⁹ views the native female children, and presumably the native population in and of itself, as a barbarian horde might view the abject and downtrodden people of a country it had just devastated. One need not be a goose-stepping, sieg-heiling, supporter of a future Fourth Reich to think that something rather unfortunate is happening here, or that the unwillingness of the authorities to shed much light on this problem is motivated by a desire to keep certain uncomfortable truths under lock and key. For which government will freely acknowledge that a minority population imported against the wishes of the natives is, in effect, waging an underground war against them, a war in the face of which the apparatus of state appears to be helpless?

Are any of the above estimates likely to be accurate? Well, the uncertainties being so great at each step of the calculation, it is impossible to know for sure. But given that there is reason to believe that both the pimping and consequent raping of underage white girls are low-risk activities (at least if one is a Pakistani), it is hard to see what deterrents could exist to persuade Pakistani males not to engage in them. And given further that no one else seems to have generated any estimates as to just what fraction of the Pakistani population of the UK is involved in this activity, who is there to gainsay us in this regard? Are there better figures out there? Can they be revealed? In the absence of real information, those who are concerned about the problem will have to generate their own estimates of its severity. Those concerned, in turn, about these estimates need to plug the gap with credible data. Until this is done, we see no reason to consider the above analysis particularly implausible.

Ideally, of course, amateur criminologists such as ourselves would not have to engage in such speculative calculation. But we can hardly rely on the police to do it for us, as they appear to have already established (with certain honourable exceptions) such a record of willful uselessness in this regard as to make Clouseau look like Columbo. Nothing illustrates better than this sickening saga of professional malfeasance¹⁰ just how mistaken we are if we persist in seeing the UK police as being some sort of relatively neutral law enforcement tool, that, like, hears about a crime, then, like, investigates it, and then, like, brings the perpetrators to justice. We are talking about a police force that once arrested a man for ostensibly homophobic comments made to a horse. Does anybody really believe that the UK police force, in the 21st-century, is some sort of unbiased, apolitical enforcer of the law?

No, our police force has become contaminated by:

1.		A concern not to appear politically incorrect, let alone ‘racist’.
2.		A fear of the implications of actually enforcing the law with respect to large, hostile, and unassimilated Muslim populations.

It is hard to say which of these factors is the more important in explaining the criminal negligence of the police vis-à-vis pimping. Perhaps they can tell us themselves. But one thing should be understood. If the Pakistani Muslim populations of many towns in the north of England are now large enough to force the police to refrain from enforcing the law concerning a matter of this gravity, then, short of massive ethnic cleansing or a radical change in law enforcement policy, this state of affairs will exist in perpetuity, as the rapid growth of these populations can only stack the deck ever more against the apparatus of state. Have the British people given their consent to the effective expulsion¹¹ of the police from vast swathes of urban Britain? If not, they need to ask themselves whether the state is even attempting any longer to fulfill its obligations under the social contract that exists between itself and the people, and what they will eventually be required to do if it is not.

We are reminded of fairy tales in which, once a year, a dragon descends upon some unfortunate village, and demands a fair young maiden to devour in return for not destroying the villagers’ homes with its fiery breath. The main difference with our situation is that rendering up the maiden to the dragon at least buys the villagers a year of peace and quiet.

What, precisely, is being purchased by the disgraceful, despicable, degenerate behaviour of those police forces that have, it seems, ‘de-emphasised’ the pursuit of the systematic rapists, pimpers, druggers, and destroyers of white girls? An extra hour’s kip, feet up on the desk, snoring away? Or something even more important? Can we be told?

Of course, many will protest that it is really terribly, terribly, difficult to crack down on a crime of this sort. This is presumably why the authorities have had to resort to ‘educational campaigns’ and the writing of warning letters to suspected pimps (yes, really). Jack Straw’s Blackburn constituency is one of those afflicted with a Pakistani pimping problem,¹² and Mr. Straw is quoted in Mothers of Prevention talking about how he has undertaken only various vague and unquantifiable activities to address the problem.

We do not intend here to cast aspersions upon Mr. Straw himself. Quite the contrary, in fact. Of all the Stalinist, dhimmi-by-choice, pointlessly-spacefilling, turnips-on-a-stick to have sat in the House of Commons in the last five years, he is by some margin the most distinguished. But if he really believes that discussing matters with ‘community leaders’ might help him address the sexual destruction of the children of his own country by recklessly imported Muslim savages, then one rather wonders what could possibly be the point of him.

Given that the police find it so frightfully, frightfully hard to deal properly with the pimping problem, there are only two ways this matter can develop. The first is that this blight on the face of our country continues, with vibrant, bustling Pakistanis destroying staid, non-bustling white girls with impunity. The second is that non-state actors respond as they see fit, paying no heed to the law. If the former is unacceptable, where does that leave us? And does it not seem probable that, if faced with a realistic threat of the latter occurring, the police would suddenly discover that the problem was not so terribly difficult to deal with after all?

If there is a better reason than the above-outlined Pakistani Muslim depravity for lighting torches, grabbing pitchforks, and launching a tribal civil war that burns down the entire country and leaves it populated only by seagulls and hedgehogs, so that, before too long, people in mainland Europe talk only of a legendary country called Brittaine that existed, it is rumoured, in the days of yore, then it has not yet occurred to the authors of this document. And we have thought about it jolly hard. If it proves to be the case that the apparatus of state has chosen not to protect the female children of this country from the depredations of hostile, rapacious aliens, then a great number of heads of all different shapes and sizes will have to be observed to roll before justice can be considered to have been done.

In closing, I invite readers of this document, kafir and believer both, to reflect with the utmost seriousness on what the future could hold for this country if these matters are not dealt with to the satisfaction of British patriots, who see no reason to be colonized and preyed upon by Pakistani Muslims, a people so hopeless as to have turned their own country into a byword for national collapse, civilizational failure, and religiously-inspired psychopathy. On this matter, we demand satisfaction.

Female Genital Mutilation

Female genital mutilation is by no means a cultural practice engaged in by all Muslims around the world. Nor, indeed, is it one engaged in only by Muslims, there existing many places in Africa where it is practiced by non-Muslim peoples. Nonetheless, it provides us with a specific example of a very disturbing phenomenon, and one which threatens to discredit the law and with it the legitimacy of the apparatus of state. The disturbing phenomenon in question is not the removal of certain parts of the sexual organs of young girls, disgusting, dangerous, inhumane, and repugnant though this is. Rather, it is the conversion of enforceable laws into unenforceable laws through the importation of culturally alien peoples.

To make this point properly, we need to understand what is meant by an unenforceable law. Consider the law prohibiting the possession of ecstasy, a Class A drug. Strictly speaking, possession of ecstasy is punishable by up to seven years in prison, which makes it a serious criminal offence. Nonetheless, it was once estimated that, every weekend in the UK, a million people take this drug. Assuming for the sake of illustration that this figure is still accurate, this means that one million people, give or take, are breaking the law in this regard every week.

Now, what steps could the British government take if it were to suddenly to decide that this state of affairs were unacceptable, and that ecstasy use must be eradicated? In principle, the police could start raiding nightclubs across the country on Friday and Saturday nights, slamming punters up against the wall, and going through their pockets. Some number of unfortunate clubbers would, as a consequence, find themselves facing seven years (reduced, of course, to three and a half) inside. But the British prison population is already about 95,000-strong, and incarcerating people is a fantastically expensive thing to do.

In addition, the political fallout that would greet a government using such heavy-handed tactics and consuming such massive resources in a ‘war’ against a drug that seems to be essentially harmless (we ignore here the many other considerations a full discussion of this matter would require) would make the whole affair prohibitively expensive in that regard too. Even dragging 2,000 people off to jail on a single weekend would leave the other 998,000 (or 99.8% of the total) unmolested by the long arm of the law. If we assume three and a half years incarceration each, multiply by 2,000 people, and then multiply by £40,000 for the costs of one year of incarceration, then we have a cost of £280 million for the incarceration of these wrongdoers. Adding in police costs, court costs, and the opportunity costs of the incarcerated not being able to work, we are surely looking at a bill in excess of £500 million to remove 0.2% of all ecstasy users from the streets of the UK for three and a half years.

If these exertions were repeated every weekend for a year, at a total cost including incarceration of, say, £26 billion, 89.6% of the original one million users would still be at large at the end of the year, despite having broken the law a grand total of 52 times. It is hard to envisage a scenario in which such massive exertions could possibly be considered to have any net benefits, which is why they do not occur. Trying to stop the flow of ecstasy into the UK in the first place might seem like a better idea, but the slightest familiarity with the U.S. War on Drugs suggests that such things are not easily accomplished.

This is not to suggest that the possession (and therefore the use) of ecstasy could not be prevented in principle. Paramilitary death squads could be created and equipped with on-the-spot ecstasy blood tests to dispense ‘justice’ to those having indulged in the drug. But this would be politically impossible in the UK, and the cost-benefit analysis would still, to put it mildly, edge towards the unfavourable. What this means is that the laws on ecstasy possession are completely unenforceable in any meaningful sense, as the takers of this drug understand very well.

The reader will now be wondering what, if anything, any of this could possibly have to do with FGM, and the answer is simply that the British government is already in an essentially identical position with respect to this hideous crime. It is estimated that several hundred female genital mutilations take place every year in the UK, mainly within the UK Somali population. Let us put this figure at 500, and assume that both the mother and the father of the mutilated child are implicated in the crime. That means that 1,000 people, mainly Somalis and all immigrants, are implicated every year in the crime of mutilation.

If, on the last day of 2010, the police were to build irrefutable cases against 100 of them, who were then arrested, tried and sentenced to long prison sentences, a great blow would have been struck for justice and the British way of life, and our political overlords would be thrilled. Correct? Actually, no. Incorrect. There is nothing our political overlords would like less than this. Let us explain.

Consider what putting 100 Somalis (fifty Somali couples) in prison will involve. Under the Female Genital Mutilation Act, someone found guilty of female genital mutilation can receive a sentence of up to 14 years. Let us assume they receive average sentences of ten years each, of which they serve five. Let us also bear in mind that:

1.		Such convictions could only be secured via compulsory medical examinations, against the wishes of the parents.
2.		Convicting two Somali parents of this crime will mean that all their children will have to be taken away from them, permanently, and placed in care, at great public expense.
3.		There is no guarantee that other Somali parents will be deterred by this, making it overwhelmingly likely that the whole process will have to be repeated, perhaps in perpetuity.

Taking hundreds of Somali children into care, and therefore out of their communities, every year would itself result in accusations of cultural genocide or the like. Accusations of ‘stigmatisation’ would fly through the air thick and fast. After a few short years, there would already be facilities somewhere full of Somali children in care where, presumably, the staff would have to be Somali so as to allow the children to preserve the oh-so-precious cultural heritage from which they had to be rescued in the first place.

It is fairly clear that no one is going to walk into the expensive, nasty, grueling, polarising minefield such an endeavour would turn out to be without good reason. And if the welfare of the children in question constituted such a reason, it would already have happened. Besides, they would have been cut in Somalia, would they not? Now they are being cut here instead. What of it?

Anyone who is unconvinced by this analysis needs to present an alternative explanation for the way in which, despite the Female Genital Mutilation Act having been passed in 2003, there have been, to date, no convictions at all. Life peer Ruth Rendell would certainly appreciate such an explanation. As quoted in December 2009 in the Independent¹³:

“When I helped take the Bill [the FGM Act] through Parliament seven years ago, I was very hopeful that we’d get convictions and that would then act as a deterrent for other people. But that has never happened and my heart bleeds for these girls. [...] I have repeatedly asked questions of ministers from all departments about why there has never been a prosecution and why we still do not have a register of cases. But while they are always very sympathetic, nothing ever seems to get done.“ [Italics added]

We do not wish to scorn the efforts of Ruth Rendell, who is clearly a compassionate woman, and one who has committed a good deal of time and energy to opposing the horrible barbarity of FGM. But expressions of sympathy are cheap, and she is reading too much into those made by the empty suits with whom she discusses these matters.

Given that incontrovertible evidence of FGM can be obtained by medical examination, the failure of all these supposedly titanic efforts to address it must indeed seem odd to some. But it will only do so as long as one continues to look it at from the wrong perspective, in which those in government are genuinely trying to bring this barbarity to an end. The correct perspective is built on the insight that to date, our governing elite has introduced useless smokescreen legislation to give the impression that it is doing something, whilst making absolutely sure that the police do not have the powers they need to address this crime properly, i.e. the power to perform, or have performed, medical examinations.

To rephrase, this lack of police power is not a bug, but a feature, in this system, a system whose architects are doubtless relieved that the mutilation in question does not consist of plucking out an eyeball — that would oblige them to actually do something about it, as empty eye sockets are not so easily hidden.

Certain anti-FGM campaigners argue for a tactic of targetting the ‘cutters’ who are responsible for the mutilation. They present this as a more moral course of action, targetting those profiting from the work rather than confused and uneducated parents doing what they think is best for their children. But this makes no sense, as the cutters themselves are of the same culture, and are doubtless just as ‘confused’ and uneducated as the parents, sharing as they do their beliefs about the necessity of the procedure. Indeed, they have probably all already been ‘cut’ themselves.

We suspect these campaigners understand all too well that the problem is hopeless within extant political paradigms, under which FGM has become de facto legal, for the reasons outlined above. Targetting the cutters is their only remaining option, as it would, in principle, allow them to address the problem by targetting people whose incarceration would not pose the insoluble political problems described above. However, we must observe that this approach, roughly analogous to targeting drug dealers instead of drug users in the ‘War on Drugs’, would likely prove similarly ineffective for the same reasons, even supposing that it managed to secure one of the convictions that have so far eluded it. Cutting down on the supply of cutters will only increase the price of their service, and with it the incentives to provide it.

Can the grotesque contamination of our country that FGM constitutes be tolerated? Most of us are probably relatively unconcerned about the de facto legality of ecstasy consumption. But can we look at each other, shrug, and say that, for some groups in 21st-century Britain, cutting pieces of the sexual apparatus out of one’s daughters is an entirely risk-free undertaking with respect to the law?

Even if, appallingly, we thought we could stomach the occasional clitoridectomy, we should not delude ourselves that this is the only type of crime that has slipped off the radar of the criminal justice system, and therefore, in effect, out of existence. Forced marriages (often of underage girls) and attendant abductions, beatings, and threats; honour killings; the drugging, pimping, and raping of underage white girls; violence towards and the forced confinement of female family members: what reason do we have to believe that the authorities really have the slightest interest in enforcing the law with respect to ‘culturally sensitive’ matters? And why is it that so many culturally sensitive crimes are committed overwhelmingly, if not entirely, by Muslims? Is this a coincidence?

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves one key question. Is British law to be determined by our democratically elected representatives in Parliament? Or is it to be determined, in practice if not in principle, by the cultural standards of whatever random assembly of unassimilable aliens has been allowed to congregate on our shores, through immigration policies which have long since ceased to reflect the desires of the British people?

We end this discussion by including the closing paragraph of the Independent article mentioned above:

“A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We have appointed an FGM co-ordinator to drive forward a co-ordinated government response to this appalling crime and make recommendations for future work.’”

‘Future work’ that will have no effect on anything at all. A slow, slow train coming.

IV. A Critique of Police Priorities in the Face of Muslim Crime

There is criticism aplenty of the apparatus of state in the previous section, both explicit and implicit. However, there is one particular issue that needs to be addressed here directly. If one were to ask a thousand people at random what the primary objective of the police is, nearly all would surely reply that it is to enforce the law, bring criminals to justice, and thereby deter to some extent future crimes. Intriguingly, there does not seem to be any consensus amongst criminologists or other students of these matters that this answer would be correct.

Of course enforcing the law is one of the primary objectives of the police, but there is a body of thought that insists that, in actuality, the maintenance of public order is (or at least ought to be) their main concern. Many otherwise incomprehensible phenomena can be understood once one realizes that this second objective vies with the first.

It is far from contemptible that the police should be required to attach great importance to the maintenance of public order, for frequent, uncontrolled disorder in the public sphere will have seriously detrimental effects on any country in short order. However, we are troubled by the way in which the relative importances attached to the maintenance of public order and the enforcement of the law appear to vary as a function of the ethnic/religious group being policed. A great many examples of this disturbing trend already exist, but we will examine a single one here to establish the point.

We are confident that all readers of this document will remember the now-infamous demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in London, in February 2006. During the Mohammed Cartoon Crisis, the Saviour Sect and Al-Ghurabaa, two of the most unsavoury of the many unsavoury Muslim groups in the UK, held a protest outside this embassy. The protest showcased the global ummah at its most unappealing, consisting as it did of several hundred deranged, frothing, homicidally-inclined Muslims loosing a volley of outrageous threats and abuse towards the Danish cartoonists and Europeans in general.

The photos of these protesters and their placards — in our capital city — have sullied, in perpetuity, the reputation of our country. Given that the protest was illegal irrespective of content (in that the organizers had not obtained a permit) and given further that it was illegal in terms of its content too, involving as it did a large number of psychopathic Muslims openly and unashamedly inciting murder against the entirely innocent citizens of a friendly country, would it really have been too much to expect the police to break it up, with force if necessary? Clearly, the answer to this question was yes, because the maintenance of public order took precedence over the enforcement of the law.

According to an article¹⁴ in the Telegraph which provides a serviceable summary of the police and public response to the demonstration:

Scotland Yard, which has received at least 100 complaints from members of the public so far, defended the decision not to make arrests. It said the officer in charge at such scenes had to weigh the need to make arrests against the likelihood of provoking more serious unrest. [Italics added]

This may seem innocuous enough on first reading, but it contains the seeds of something terribly destructive. If the likelihood of arrests being made is inversely proportional to the potential for serious disorder, then those more likely to cause serious disorder will be extended greater leeway to break the law in public. And this fact is unlikely to be lost on them.

Sadly, it was most certainly lost on the Metropolitan Police, who made the decision to allow the protest to go ahead unmolested. Having seemingly forgotten that prevention is better than cure, they decided that, rather than actually stop the crimes being committed, they would gather evidence to be used later, in their assiduous pursuit of the perpetrators of the crimes they had proven so unwilling to prevent in the first place. According to a police spokesman quoted in the Telegraph:

Specialist officers were deployed to record any potential event, should it be needed at any point in the future.

They would deploy some of their specialist officers, no less, to bring justice to the wrongdoers. We can reveal here for the first time, after extensive independent investigation, that said specialists were not bog-standard peelers with video cameras. Far from it, in fact. Every single one of the specialists deployed by those tasked with our protection had spent the last ten years on a mountain top in China, training in the arcane art of ‘filming-criminals-whilst-they-are-breaking-the-law-but-not-actually-doing-anything-about-it-because-they-might-lose-their-tempers.’

Given that the Metropolitan Police had decided to pull out all the stops and use their ‘specialists’ to bring the guilty to justice after the protest had ended, readers might be tempted to conclude that they did not botch their response so badly after all. But, cruel, cruel world! To the great dismay of these modern-day ninja warriors, certain of the more technically savvy Muslims unleashed a devastating countermeasure of their own: a high-tech cloaking device which rendered them completely impervious to the long arm of the law. Needless to say, the device does not bestow complete invisibility on its user. One can still make out a vague, and vaguely human, silhouette. But it is, nonetheless, a formidable weapon in the criminal armoury of the global ummah. Readers are invited to study the accompanying image to see exactly what the police were up against. Who said Muslims were technological incompetents?

Such dastardly criminal brilliance, in the face of which Holmes himself would have gnashed his teeth and Moriarty swooned in admiration, seems to have confounded the best efforts of the specialists deployed by our law enforcement establishment. Consider their dilemma. There are people. They are breaking the law. They are standing still, in public. But they have covered their faces. How to proceed?

Thumbing desperately through their well-worn copies of Law Enforcement for Dummies, brows furrowed in concentration as they wrestled fiercely with conceptual difficulties that would have reduced Newton himself to a groaning wreck, they eventually admitted defeat. A thousand curses! There was nothing to be done! We tried filming them, but the face coverings worn by the criminals were visible not only in real life, but in our footage too! Cameras are complicated! This was not covered in training! Ten years on top of a mountain for nothing!

We are reluctant to continue in this facetious vein in a document written in deadly seriousness. Nor would we want our readers to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that we have a low opinion of Sir Ian Blair, who was commissioner of the Metropolitan Police during this disgraceful fiasco.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Of all the useless, insensate, dhimmi-by-choice, Hello-Kitty pieces of vegetable matter to have ever been in charge of policing in our capital city, he was by some margin the most intellectually distinguished. But if he really thinks that responsible police work consists of filming people for the purposes of subsequent identification despite the fact that the people in question are hiding their faces and cannot be identified, then it is rather hard to see what could possibly have been the point of him.¹⁵

Anyway, we have digressed shamefully and must return to the original subject of our enquiry, to wit, Holocaust-inciters swathed in ACME cloaking devices. Perhaps the Americans, or the Israelis, or some other such group of serious people, could have devised a way to bring this woman to justice. But not the British bobby. No, the despicable creature who advised us to ‘Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust’, is still at large. What would the police have done if they had wanted, or needed, to arrest her? Deployed their tactical Ouija board?

Of course, this is not to suggest that the police let all the protesters get away scot-free. On the contrary, the ‘film-first-arrest-later’ approach resulted in a total of four (quatre, cuatro) protestors eventually being convicted of a variety of offences relating to the incitement of hatred. According to the Metropolitan Police, there were 450 protestors present on the day, which means that a trifling 99.1% of them were able to participate in the inciting of all kinds of death and damnation against all manner of people without suffering any unpleasantness themselves on the day itself or afterwards. Behold the majesty of the law!

If the 450 Muslim protestors outside the Danish Embassy had been 450 neo-Nazi protestors outside the Israeli Embassy, with equivalent signs and rhetoric, screeching about holocausts and whatnot, and with an identical ability to riot and cause public disorder, would the same softly-softly approach to the policing of criminal scum still have been adopted by the Metropolitan Police? Or would they have waded in and given it, shall we say, a bit of welly? It is impossible to say for sure. But we are fairly confident that their response would have been quite different, and that, if a few heads had needed to be cracked to make our hypothetical Nazis see the error of their ways, then they would have been cracked good and hard.

There are many examples of this unfortunate wilting of the police in the face of Muslim anger or expected Muslim anger:

• The last-minute cancellation of the legal SIOE (Stop the Islamization of Europe) and EDL demonstration outside the Harrow mosque due to mass Muslim violence and the threat of such violence.
  
• The treacherous, pusillanimous behaviour of the despicable Anil Patani of the West Midlands Police, who pursued the makers of Undercover Mosque rather than the Muslims caught on camera within it.
  
• The refusal to properly investigate pimping as described above.
  
• The willingness of the police to tolerate vast numbers of Muslims calling, in public, for Salman Rushdie to be killed.

All of this makes terribly clear the relationship that now exists between the British state and the Muslim population of the UK. The degree of tribalism, aggression, and contempt for this country, its people, and its laws in the UK Muslim community is so great, and so ready to erupt at any time, that the police have taken appeasing it as being one of their chief objectives, the better to preserve public order.

We need to be clear as to what exactly this means. A disproportionately criminal, parasitic, terrorist, and seditious group of people, having escaped the run-down hellholes that they or their recent ancestors hail from, are doing their level best to convert our country, Britain, into the same kind of hellhole, where the same moral standards and general chaos obtain for the same reason (i.e. the dominance of those Muslims who will engage in massive religiously-motivated violence and disorder at the drop of a hat). And the police are letting them do it. For when the maintenance of public order trumps all other considerations, those who threaten it most effectively will be granted the most concessions. In contrast, those who can be cracked down on without fear of repercussions will find themselves on a much shorter leash.

The Thin Blue Line is proving itself to be not only thin, but feeble to boot, and more feeble by the day, at least vis-à-vis Muslims. The British police are, like any other police force anywhere in the world, not some sort of omnicompetent law enforcement mechanism, a magic wand that can be waved over any infringement of our laws to make it go away. They have evolved over the years, as has our entire criminal justice system, to deal with the public order and law enforcement challenges of a specific people, the British, in a specific country, Britain. They are, in a fundamental structural sense, quite incapable of adequately policing our Muslim population which, despite its diversity in terms of national origin, is, in certain crucial ways, showing its ‘Muslimness’ in much the same way as the Muslim population of every other Western European country.

Tribal, aggressive, implacable, and a strong presence in every major urban area throughout the country; the British police, indeed our criminal justice system as a whole, have not been designed, trained, or equipped to deal with such operational challenges. Those who are still sceptical on this point would do well to view the footage available on Youtube of the aforementioned attempts of SIOE and the EDL to stage a legal demonstration outside Harrow mosque, and the complete inability of the police to allow them to do so. The police are, perhaps unwittingly, simply incentivising disorder and the threat of disorder, and disincentivising law-abiding behaviour. Do we need to point out that this cannot lead anywhere that we could possibly want to be?

All this with a Muslim population of 4%! How will things be when the Muslim population of the country is 6%, or 8%, and has taken over an even greater fraction of virtually every part of the urban UK? The fear of disorder on the part of our authorities and the willingness of Muslims to threaten it are an unholy combination, setting up a positive feedback loop which must be broken sooner rather than later.

For the Danish Embassy protest was emblematic of a wider problem. If the UK is not to eventually turn into a country dotted with a patchwork of Muslim no-go zones in and around which British law barely obtains at all, the authorities will eventually have to establish that the law applies to Muslims as much as to anyone else.

Two things are patently obvious to the current authors:

1.		That breaking out of this vicious cycle will be extremely painful and costly.
2.		That there is no guarantee that the poltroons responsible for formulating law enforcement policy vis-à-vis the possibility of Muslim disorder have the courage required to endure this pain or these costs.

We wish to state here for the record that the potentially catastrophic consequences of the hopeless short-termism that seems to prevail on the part of our law enforcement establishment are not wreathed in mist. They are, by and large, fairly obvious, and include the complete breakdown of law and order in Muslim-dominated areas, as can already be seen in parts of many European countries, and a descent into outright, permanent, sectarian conflict between Muslims and their host societies, conflict that the authorities will be powerless to control.

Let those in positions of authority, whether in government or in the police, not pretend to be unaware of this. Their culpability will not be forgotten when British patriots are eventually forced to do what is necessary to save their society from complete disintegration.



Next Installment: “Islam, Muslims, and Crime from the Perspective of a Psychologist” and “The Dark Figure and Other Subtleties”

Notes:

4		Times Online
5		Link for the first of six parts.
6		BBC
7		Now all we need to do is add in the Pakistani taxi drivers, shop-owners, security guards, and schoolboys aiding and abetting the entire process. How many would there be? Five thousand? Ten thousand?
8		Yes, 55, not 54. This is the rounding error coming back in.
9		It is crucial to understand what this means. We are interested here in the properties of groups of individuals, not of individuals themselves. Lions are more dangerous to human beings than badgers, and this conclusion cannot reasonably be altered even if we know that some lions are harmless and some badgers dangerous. Similarly, the criminal and destructive behaviour of adult Pakistani males in the aggregate requires us to draw certain conclusions. Those who object to this way of conceptualizing the issue should ask themselves whether they would rather walk through a cage full of lions or a cage full of badgers. Few would choose the lions, and few would consider themselves to have been discriminatory or prejudiced for having done so. There are patterns in the world, and they do not go away just because some choose to ignore them.
10		We do not say what we say about the police to malign the rank and file, well aware as we are of the fact that most people who join the police do so to serve and protect the people of this country. These good people will be just as horrified by the situation as we are. Our criticisms are aimed at the politicians and the politically-motivated senior police officers for whom protecting the public comes in a distant second compared with sweeping thorny subjects under the carpet whilst mouthing platitudes about how diversity has enriched us all. Has it enriched the girls destroyed by one of its most despicable manifestations?
11		By this, we do not mean that the police do not operate in the areas in question but that, at least with respect to certain crimes, they might as well not due to their complete lack of interest in carrying out their responsibilities therein.
12		By rights, white British people should be responsible for a majority of all crime types in all areas, due to their massive numerical dominance. According to the detective quoted in ‘Teenage Sex for Sale’, however, ‘Asians’ are mainly responsible in the north of England, blacks in the West Midlands, and whites, Turks and Kurds elsewhere (note that Turks and Kurds are also overwhelmingly Muslim). That such small groups as the minorities in question dominate this type of crime in any area at all makes it clear just how big a problem their members are on a per-capita basis. If 20% of the population of an area is responsible for 90% of all crime of a certain type in that area, that means that the 20% in question is overrepresented for that crime by a factor of fully thirty-six, or one and a half orders of magnitude. This point must be understood, or all too many people will shrug this matter off as a case of Pakistanis dominating in one area, blacks and whites in others. To arrive at this conclusion would be to misunderstand the matter entirely.
13		The Independent
14		The Telegraph
15		It is worth remembering that his deputy, Brian Paddick, was a man of great comedic talents. Subsequent to the 2005 London Tube and bus bombings, he said that ‘Islam and terrorism are two words that do not go together’. Of course, if this were true, there would have been no reason to say it. What sane man ever denied a connection between kumquats and terrorism?