Suppose I were to tell you that 90% of all rapes in London in 2024 so far were committed by Muslim men. Well, if you are from somewhere other than Britain, you might be shocked, you might be appalled, or you might merely be resigned. But if you are from Britain you would say, “And how would you know that?”
Because, you see, the police don’t collect that data.
So, you see, I don’t know how many of the rapes that have been committed this year in London were committed by Muslims. Or Christians. Neither Baptists nor Amish. I am ignorant about Buddhists and Hindus, Mormons and Seven Day Adventists.
Not only that, I am ignorant as to how many Pakistanis, or Afghanis… just off the boat or second generation. I can’t tell you how many 12th generation Britons, or Welsh, or Irish. Because the data isn’t kept.
Incompetent
And I am not accusing the British police of being incompetent. I might have a lot to say about them but here, at least, my accusation isn’t incompetence. I don’t believe that they are too stupid to keep track of the data… I think they don’t collect it. And I don’t think they fail to collect it because of incompetence, but on purpose.
Nor are they lazy. I mean, they may be lazy for all I know, but they don’t fail to collect or keep this data because they are lazy.
No, it is because… they don’t want to know. Which is a stupid thing to say because of course they know. When they take complaint after complaint, and even arrest some of them, they have to know. But they don’t have to know… officially. They don’t have to know in the sense that they can ‘honestly’ say they don’t know… there are no data.
Say No Evil
And even when they have the data they will not release it. The other day a politician accused the police of ‘withholding’ data… that they had not released. It would be difficult to find a more irrational discussion. Of course they were withholding the data… they didn’t release it. That is literally what ‘withhold’ means.
Protecting the Court
And then there are the laws in Britain regarding reporting on court cases. In a word: don’t. Oh, you theoretically can, but in reality the rules are so draconian that I have heard the British press flat out refuse to report on things dozens of times.
For which excuse they speak of perverting the jury. Which sounds good… until you realise that that may mean years of press blackout on a subject of intense public importance, and that it ends up shielding the court itself from public scrutiny.
It’s all a lie
One of the best way to lie is to forbid the truth from being spoken. The government, at all levels, of the UK is getting extraordinarily good at it. Don’t believe the lie that they cannot judge rightly because they have no data. Their goal was to judge wrongly, thus they made sure that they, and most particularly we, had no data.
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Von
Links
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-07-17/reporting-restrictions-explained-when-are-journalists-banned-from-covering-legal-cases-and-why/
See this at the thirty minute mark and the thirty six minute mark:
Are you in the UK, Von? Just curious.
The UK is in real trouble.