Crime in our times
On those rare occasions when members of the establishment and other multi-culti fanatics are forced to admit that newly arrived enrichers, together with first and second generation colonisers of overseas origin, commit disproportionate levels of of crime, they inevitably blame poverty and social deprivation. To support their case, they will point to statistics which they will insist show the percentages of various ethnic groups who are apparently living in poor circumstances.
What they will never do, of course, is show you statistics based on the overall population, because that will display a very different picture. By failing to do so, they are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. They have to, because, if they told the truth their argument would fall apart. Secretly, they know, when you are talking about numbers, the only fair comparison is with other numbers, not with percentages. Unfortunately, most people are not as devious as they are, and will not think about what they are being told.
In fact, what they are doing is playing what I like to call “The two Eskimo trick”. (Take note of this as they play this trick on us all the time and you need to be prepared to counter it) it works as follows, let us assume for argument sake that there were no Eskimos living in Barnstaple Devon, until two Inuit brothers immigrated there from Nunavut in Northern Canada. One of the Eskimo brothers works hard and does quite well for himself, whereas the other suffers a string of unlucky breaks and falls into poverty. By using the two Eskimo trick, over night Eskimos become the most deprived group in the West Country on the basis that 50% of all Eskimos in Barnstaple are living in poverty, even though it is actually only one person.
Meanwhile, if the other Eskimo becomes a successful businessman and employs a school leaver in his take away seal meat and fried blubber shop, the same pair of Eskimos can be used to show how much benefit Eskimos have brought to the local community because 50% of all Eskimos moving into the area have created employment .... you get the picture?.
As I have explained in previous articles, they also apply this same trick when they present their statistics on alleged race hate crimes. For instance, they will point to figures which show that 4% of Asians have suffered racial violence, whereas “only” 0.3% of indigenous whites have. They imply by this that much larger numbers of Asians are being attacked than whites were. Whereas, in fact the figures were based on 1999, when whites were still 90% of the population (how things change!!) hence 0.3% of whites was a vastly greater number than 4% of Asians. In truth their figures showed that, even back then, whites accounted for more than 60% of all race hate crime victims in this country (See this article I wrote last year for sources and calculations), of course that is not how they were presented to a gullible public.
In reality, and in numeric terms, across the country a far greater number of whites are living in poverty and often severe deprivation, than all other ethnic groups put together. Hence, if poverty and deprivation were the cause, you would expect to see disproportionately higher numbers of whites involved in crime, however, that is far from what we are seeing. In facts white criminals are heavily under represented in terms of the numbers living in poverty, if that were the test.
Let us test the argument that people of immigrant origin commit disproportionate numbers of crimes because nasty, racist, white society force them to live in poverty a little further.
To do so, I suggest we visit the hallowed portals of the the Financial Services Authority, or “FSA”, the body set up to police the activities of those working within the financial services industry. That is to say, bankers, financial advisers and mortgage advisers, people who, even in a credit crunch, few would describe as “impoverished” or “deprived”.
As part of the FSA's regulatory process, they issue press releases whenever they fine or ban members of the financial services industry who have been found guilty of incompetence, or in this instance, malpractice.
I have done a trawl through the press releases the FSA have issued in the first four and a half months of this year, and this is what I found:
On 19th January 2009 the FSA banned North London broker Moses Luzinda trading as Remos and Co for submitting false mortgage applications. (in the interests of fairness, I note that the same press release mentions that is a separate case Mortgage broker Richard Kennedy was also banned and fined for mortgage fraud.)
On the 9th February the FSA obtained a Court Order that Mr Aniz Kassamali Dhanji Manji the owner of Bayshore Nominees Limited will return £1m to investors and Mr Suresh Maganlal Bhowan a director of Bayshore will pay £17,233. These investors were victims of a share scam operated by overseas entities which sold worthless shares to UK investors.
on the 16th February the FSA banned mortgage broker Leo Kusi-Appiah, who was recently jailed after pleading guilty at St Albans Crown Court to obtaining property by deception in connection with mortgage fraud.
On the 2nd of March 2009, the FSA banned Wakefield-based mortgage adviser Mohammed Ahmed for submitting mortgage applications on his and a customer’s behalf that were supported by false income details .
On 30 March 2009 the FSA banned Walthamstow-based mortgage adviser Ashfaq Ahmed for fraud. The regulator found that Ahmed had submitted mortgage applications on his own behalf that were based on false and misleading information about his income.
On the 6th of April 2009 the FSA succeeded in banning Mr Milan Vukelic from working in the financial services industry in the UK. The Tribunal found that Mr Vukelic’s actions whilst CEO of Alternative Solutions (AltSol) lacked integrity.
On the 16th of Apri 2009 the FSA banned banned a South London mortgage broker Abiola Agbalaya and fined him £100,000 for his knowing involvement in the submission of false mortgage applications.
Grace Olatunji, who worked as a mortgage consultant for Mr Agbalaya, has also been banned for submitting mortgage applications based on false income information.
On 30th April 2009 the FSA banned Tower Hamlets based mortgage adviser Zia Chowdhury for certifying client identities for fraudulent mortgage applications.
On 14 May 2009 the FSA banned a Bradford mortgage adviser, Sofique Ullah, who traded as M A Financial Services and M A Mortgages, for knowingly submitting mortgage applications supported by inaccurate and misleading employment details for himself and on behalf of his customers.
And we are only half way through May
Certainly there are other press releases featuring more Anglo Saxon names, however, those listed above are, again, disproportionately misrepresented, making up over half of those involving alleged criminal behaviour, and, in respect of those fined and banned for misbehaviour involving mortgage crime, they make up over 70%.
I accept that it is always possible that Englishmen and women with a British heritage dating back to 1066 and beyond may have adopted names such as Ashfaq, Mohammed and Dhanji Manji after converting to Kabbalah, and certainly if any Searchlight bot reading this can prove that to be the case I sill certainly publish a correction.
However, I would point out that I have already excluded the following from the above count, on the basis that their names, although exotic I have been unable to verify that they are of foreign origin.
Mr Loic Albert Antoine Montserret, a former portfolio manager at BlueCrest Capital Management Limited (BlueCrest), £35,000 for deliberately mismarking his positions in an attempt to avoid losing his job over losses he was making on his trading book.
Mr Anthony Abonia of Renbee Associates banned for submitting mortgage applications containing false or misleading information to lenders on his own and his customers' behalf.
Gabriel Aramide, banned and fined £101,279 for submitting a fraudulent mortgage application and for concealing a fraud conviction when applying to the FSA for approval as a director.
However, excluding them does not change the overall picture.
Once again we are finding evidence of people of immigrant origin who are disproportionately involved in, at the very least, malpractice, and in circumstances where social deprivation is unlikely to be to blame. Therefore, what can be?
I present you with the facts and leave it to you to make your conclusions.
_______________________________
What they will never do, of course, is show you statistics based on the overall population, because that will display a very different picture. By failing to do so, they are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. They have to, because, if they told the truth their argument would fall apart. Secretly, they know, when you are talking about numbers, the only fair comparison is with other numbers, not with percentages. Unfortunately, most people are not as devious as they are, and will not think about what they are being told.
In fact, what they are doing is playing what I like to call “The two Eskimo trick”. (Take note of this as they play this trick on us all the time and you need to be prepared to counter it) it works as follows, let us assume for argument sake that there were no Eskimos living in Barnstaple Devon, until two Inuit brothers immigrated there from Nunavut in Northern Canada. One of the Eskimo brothers works hard and does quite well for himself, whereas the other suffers a string of unlucky breaks and falls into poverty. By using the two Eskimo trick, over night Eskimos become the most deprived group in the West Country on the basis that 50% of all Eskimos in Barnstaple are living in poverty, even though it is actually only one person.
Meanwhile, if the other Eskimo becomes a successful businessman and employs a school leaver in his take away seal meat and fried blubber shop, the same pair of Eskimos can be used to show how much benefit Eskimos have brought to the local community because 50% of all Eskimos moving into the area have created employment .... you get the picture?.
As I have explained in previous articles, they also apply this same trick when they present their statistics on alleged race hate crimes. For instance, they will point to figures which show that 4% of Asians have suffered racial violence, whereas “only” 0.3% of indigenous whites have. They imply by this that much larger numbers of Asians are being attacked than whites were. Whereas, in fact the figures were based on 1999, when whites were still 90% of the population (how things change!!) hence 0.3% of whites was a vastly greater number than 4% of Asians. In truth their figures showed that, even back then, whites accounted for more than 60% of all race hate crime victims in this country (See this article I wrote last year for sources and calculations), of course that is not how they were presented to a gullible public.
In reality, and in numeric terms, across the country a far greater number of whites are living in poverty and often severe deprivation, than all other ethnic groups put together. Hence, if poverty and deprivation were the cause, you would expect to see disproportionately higher numbers of whites involved in crime, however, that is far from what we are seeing. In facts white criminals are heavily under represented in terms of the numbers living in poverty, if that were the test.
Let us test the argument that people of immigrant origin commit disproportionate numbers of crimes because nasty, racist, white society force them to live in poverty a little further.
To do so, I suggest we visit the hallowed portals of the the Financial Services Authority, or “FSA”, the body set up to police the activities of those working within the financial services industry. That is to say, bankers, financial advisers and mortgage advisers, people who, even in a credit crunch, few would describe as “impoverished” or “deprived”.
As part of the FSA's regulatory process, they issue press releases whenever they fine or ban members of the financial services industry who have been found guilty of incompetence, or in this instance, malpractice.
I have done a trawl through the press releases the FSA have issued in the first four and a half months of this year, and this is what I found:
On 19th January 2009 the FSA banned North London broker Moses Luzinda trading as Remos and Co for submitting false mortgage applications. (in the interests of fairness, I note that the same press release mentions that is a separate case Mortgage broker Richard Kennedy was also banned and fined for mortgage fraud.)
On the 9th February the FSA obtained a Court Order that Mr Aniz Kassamali Dhanji Manji the owner of Bayshore Nominees Limited will return £1m to investors and Mr Suresh Maganlal Bhowan a director of Bayshore will pay £17,233. These investors were victims of a share scam operated by overseas entities which sold worthless shares to UK investors.
on the 16th February the FSA banned mortgage broker Leo Kusi-Appiah, who was recently jailed after pleading guilty at St Albans Crown Court to obtaining property by deception in connection with mortgage fraud.
On the 2nd of March 2009, the FSA banned Wakefield-based mortgage adviser Mohammed Ahmed for submitting mortgage applications on his and a customer’s behalf that were supported by false income details .
On 30 March 2009 the FSA banned Walthamstow-based mortgage adviser Ashfaq Ahmed for fraud. The regulator found that Ahmed had submitted mortgage applications on his own behalf that were based on false and misleading information about his income.
On the 6th of April 2009 the FSA succeeded in banning Mr Milan Vukelic from working in the financial services industry in the UK. The Tribunal found that Mr Vukelic’s actions whilst CEO of Alternative Solutions (AltSol) lacked integrity.
On the 16th of Apri 2009 the FSA banned banned a South London mortgage broker Abiola Agbalaya and fined him £100,000 for his knowing involvement in the submission of false mortgage applications.
Grace Olatunji, who worked as a mortgage consultant for Mr Agbalaya, has also been banned for submitting mortgage applications based on false income information.
On 30th April 2009 the FSA banned Tower Hamlets based mortgage adviser Zia Chowdhury for certifying client identities for fraudulent mortgage applications.
On 14 May 2009 the FSA banned a Bradford mortgage adviser, Sofique Ullah, who traded as M A Financial Services and M A Mortgages, for knowingly submitting mortgage applications supported by inaccurate and misleading employment details for himself and on behalf of his customers.
And we are only half way through May
Certainly there are other press releases featuring more Anglo Saxon names, however, those listed above are, again, disproportionately misrepresented, making up over half of those involving alleged criminal behaviour, and, in respect of those fined and banned for misbehaviour involving mortgage crime, they make up over 70%.
I accept that it is always possible that Englishmen and women with a British heritage dating back to 1066 and beyond may have adopted names such as Ashfaq, Mohammed and Dhanji Manji after converting to Kabbalah, and certainly if any Searchlight bot reading this can prove that to be the case I sill certainly publish a correction.
However, I would point out that I have already excluded the following from the above count, on the basis that their names, although exotic I have been unable to verify that they are of foreign origin.
Mr Loic Albert Antoine Montserret, a former portfolio manager at BlueCrest Capital Management Limited (BlueCrest), £35,000 for deliberately mismarking his positions in an attempt to avoid losing his job over losses he was making on his trading book.
Mr Anthony Abonia of Renbee Associates banned for submitting mortgage applications containing false or misleading information to lenders on his own and his customers' behalf.
Gabriel Aramide, banned and fined £101,279 for submitting a fraudulent mortgage application and for concealing a fraud conviction when applying to the FSA for approval as a director.
However, excluding them does not change the overall picture.
Once again we are finding evidence of people of immigrant origin who are disproportionately involved in, at the very least, malpractice, and in circumstances where social deprivation is unlikely to be to blame. Therefore, what can be?
I present you with the facts and leave it to you to make your conclusions.
_______________________________
