Muslims and Crime
I posted recently that I had looked at the cases coming up in Manchester and had been surprised to note that Muslims were disproportionately represented. That is to say: There were more Ahmeds and Mustafas (compared to Michaels and Davids) than the overall population of Manchester would predict.
I make no claim to be a statistician. I freely admit that I did not even notice the number of defendants with Armenian surnames (or whether there were any). FYI, Armenian surnames characteristically end with ‘ian’.
I have returned to this topic because I watched Crimewatch this evening. The number of people with Islamic names being sought by the police was, likewise, higher than you might expect. This may, of course, be explained by the BBC’s notorious islamophobia.
I have made a cursory (by no means exhaustive) search of the internet. Eg, I looked for ‘Muslim Crime UK Statistics’. This was less revealing than I hoped. However, there was one statistic that caught my attention: 27% of the prison population (2011) is Muslim. In France the figure is 70%, in Spain 60%. This is scary! Nowhere did I see contrary stats from, say Anjem Choudary, to prove that Muslims are disproportionately law abiding.
One thing I did notice, in passing, was that one guy convicted of benefit fraud on a large scale maintained that his behaviour was not contra to Shari’ah.
We may have a bigger problem than we suppose, even those of us who are concerned about ‘radicalised’ Muslim youth and the goings on in Doncaster.
People living in Britain are not reproducing at replacement rates. Perhaps this is why successive governments have allowed/encouraged immigration by very large numbers. Somebody has to provide for the pensioners of the future. A question that arises is: do immigrants contribute more by the taxes they pay than the benefits they consume? I can’t say that I know. It’s worth asking. Are Canadian immigrants or Bangladeshi immigrants more or less likely to be net contributors? It’s worth asking.
Our National Insurance scheme is pure Ponzi! I get £144 a week from the Dept of Work and Pensions. What could I have expected if I had put my NI ‘contributions’ into my own fund? I hazard that it would be a good deal more. If I had been responsible from the age of eighteen for my own pension, the government would have had less incentive to allow/encourage immigration. Similarly, had the government not in 1945/6 decided to take responsibility for my health care, it is certain that health care costs would be dramatically lower. In the 19th and early 20th century many Brits paid subscriptions to cover potential health care costs. It was pence per week. Needless to say, if we had comparable systems today, the costs would be very substantially higher than pence per week (medical technology being so much more sophisticated). However, if competition between health care providers had been free, I submit that health care would be affordable. What is more, in Christendom and the Anglosphere charities were and could be significant. Compare Education. When Parliament passed the Education Act in 1870, nearly everybody could read. In the Third World today many poor parents choose cheap private education over free public education.