Wednesday, 3 December 2008

Mr Tony Shell and Searchlight

Gerry Gable. The face of evil behind Searchlight

Tony Shell, the hardworking nationalist researcher who played a major part in the hugely successful and hard hitting booklet "Racism Cuts Both Ways" has been vilified by the communist and state sponsored organisation Searchlight.

Battle of Britain
has already carried a rebuttal by Mr Shell and I am also proud to carry that rebuttal.

A Brief Response To SEARCHLIGHT

Tony Shell 27th November 2008

The indigenous people of this country are suffering from a hugely disproportionate number of violent racist attacks – including racially motivated murder. This is fact.
It would seem, however, that an organisation by the name of Searchlight does not want this problem to be addressed. Why is that?

Instead of which Searchlight makes ad hominem attacks on those, such as myself, whose work has revealed the true extent of this problem. Therefore I have recently discovered that the Searchlight organisation has used its various websites to make malicious comment and false allegations against myself, in a crude attempt to discredit my work, to smear my reputation as a researcher, and to close down any debate on this subject. This therefore requires (but deserves no more than) a brief response, which is given below.

Searchlight claim:
1) That my research is part of “a pack of lies”.

Virtually everything that Searchlight has said about me is untrue. In particular, Searchlight refers to my research being a part of “a pack of lies”, and “lies, damned lies and statistics”.

I've been involved in research long enough to know that if you attack the reputation of an established and respected researcher, then you had better be VERY sure of your ground. To do anything less will result in making yourself look extremely stupid.

However if you go further, and imply that a researcher is a liar, then this requires that you provide irrefutable proof that the person you attack has deliberately falsified their work.

If you cannot provide this proof, then you have effectively destroyed any credibility you might claim. No doubt Searchlight might want to challenge that I have a reputation to defend. I have. And, modest though it is, it is recognised and acknowledged (respected) by other established researchers.

I have worked in industry for over 30 years. This has involved, almost exclusively, research using advanced mathematical modelling techniques. In that time I have had (peer-reviewed) research papers published internationally – including three papers in a science journal published by US company John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; two
conference presentations published in conference proceedings (in Brighton, England; and at the Technische Universität München, Germany); and a chapter in a book published by Springer-Verlag, London (based on research presented at an international conference in Barga, Italy). I have also been invited to work as a peerreviewer – for papers submitted by other researchers to the above-mentioned US science journal. This information has been in the public domain for many years.

My work has been recognised by an eminent Professor in the US, widely regarded as pioneering this area of research – that (in his own words) I have “introduced many very creative new ideas” (April 1999) and that I have “made a novel and important
contribution to our field
” (August 2001).

Not once have Searchlight made any effort to contact me and ask about my investigative work on racist crime. Searchlight judged my work to be a part of “a pack of lies”, whilst admitting they had not actually examined it. Nor have they ever bothered to put any questions to me.

This is not the behaviour of a credible research organisation. Quite predictably Searchlight has failed to produce the proof required to justify its ridiculous allegations. It would seem that Searchlight is very determined to dissuade and frustrate enquiry into the extraordinary levels of violence being directed against the native, indigenous population. Why?

2) That my research was undertaken to “prove the BNP’s thesis”.
Total rubbish – In fact my interest in this subject first arose from an article in The Times newspaper by Sean O’Neill, on the 2nd December 2005 (I still have the original newspaper cutting).

In his article Mr. O’Neill drew attention to the hugely disproportionate number of recorded racist murders of white people (12 white, 10 BME, between 2001 and 2004). Most significantly he reported the CRE admitting there was “little, if any, research on the issue” – a truly astonishing situation that I was determined to try to rectify.

However due to family commitments and pressure of other work, the analysis for the first report (‘Ethnicity and the Experience of Crime in England and Wales’) was not completed until the 31st October 2006 – with the document itself being completed on the 8th November 2006. The reports are therefore entirely my own work, are published in my name and carry my copyright.

The purpose of the study was therefore described in detail in the Introduction section of the first report.

However, given their comments, it seems that Searchlight staff have either
(a) not read my reports, or
(b) have not understood them. Instead Searchlight staff resort to infantile insults.

Following the controversy surrounding comments by Dr. Bob Spink MP on crime and ethnicity, a copy of the first report was posted to this Member of Parliament on the 2nd December 2006. A personal letter from Dr. Spink from his Westminster office, acknowledging receipt of my communication, was received from him on the 6th December 2006.

Therefore it is a matter of record that I (personally) first attempted to raise this
extremely important issue with a Member of Parliament some two years ago.

[ Two reports: ‘Ethnicity and The Experience of Crime in England and Wales’ November 2006; and ‘A Preliminary Analysis of the Ministry of Justice Document: Statistics on Race and The Criminal Justice System – 2006’, November 2007 are available from me in either printed or electronic (PDF) format ]

Note By Green Arrow
This rebuttal is also carried on the site, This Is Our Land, which I am pleased to add to our link list.


Anonymous said...

The above list to "This is Our Land" doesn't work - it's got TWO addresses in it instead of just the one!

Anonymous said...

Simple and to the point.

I wouldn't acknowledge those Red ratbags or even give them the time of day!

They are totally beneath contempt.


Fyrdist said...

An admirable response from a senior professional dealing in facts.

Tony Shell: I have the utmost respect for you, Sir.

Anonymous said...

I would like to compliment Mr Shell on his professional and polite response.

I know that people who read both his report and his rebuttal of Searchlight's disgraceful smears will know who the crdible and honest party is here.

I hope this will be published on the main site, thanks GA once again for an informative entry on your blog.


Anonymous said...

Excellent and to the point, we were never in any doubt Mr Shell out here in the real world.
Only people living at taxpayers expense in nice houses/areas ever maligned you.(Government whores like Searchlight)

Anonymous said...

They may also like to refute the disproportionate high amount of crime against white South African farmers that our media choose to also ignore and politicians refute.