Mail in 'defends Liddle' shock!

Via The Enemies of Reason, I've noticed that the Daily Mail has, unsurprisingly, published an article from a columnist defending Rod Liddle's racist couple of paragraphs I looked at yesterday.

Of course, Kwasi Kwarteng has defended Liddle's right to say what he wants without actually demonstrating that what he said was true.  Instead, he's moved the goalposts to talk about how black people are disproportionately involved in crime, which is not the same as showing that young black men commit most of certain types of crime in London.  For the best rebuttal of that idea, see this comment at Liberal Conspiracy (based on this document).

What I'm interested in is this from Kwarteng:
For some crimes, the figures are even more alarming. One controversial report conducted by Scotland Yard last year found that more than half of teen knife crime offences in the capital involve black suspects.
He seems to be referencing the same 'report' (or rather, response to a Daily Mail FoI request) that I referred to yesterday, and it seems that these are the most alarming figures for him.  But for those of you unfortunate enough to remember yesterday will realise, these figures do not demonstrate that young black men are responsible for most knife crime in the capital.  They're actually evidence against Liddle's claim.  For those of you who missed yesterday's post, here's 'Is Rod Liddle more racist than the BNP?'

But, here, Kwarteng has elevated the FoI response to 'controversial Scotland Yard report' without actually linking to the Mail article it's based on, so readers won't even be given the outside chance of working out that it doesn't support what Liddle said.

Since he's used this as evidence to support someone sporting the notion that young black men commit most knife crime in London, and since he hasn't once pointed out that Liddle was wrong, what's the betting that some readers will walk away from this piece thinking that a brave speaker of truth has been silenced by the liberal intelligentsia for telling the truth?

If you really want to know that, have a look at the comments on the article.

Something's cropped up for the next post.  I made an FoI request similar to the Mail's last year and I have data with the full breakdowns for people proceeded against in London for different crimes (although not precisely broken down into Liddle's classifications).  I forgot I had them and haven't even looked at them properly yet, so I could be eating my words.

Given the link to the document that Dan hardie links to in the comments at Liberal Conspiracy, I doubt it.

No comments: