The Kids Aren't All White

The Mail, as we all know, isn't a racist paper and they definitely dislike the BNP just like everyone else (they're a bit rough-looking and some of them are working class). So I always find it curious when they do their casual race-baitng work for them, such as in the crudely-titled Four in ten under-20s in London aren't white, in which they point out, over the course of a whole article, that four in ten under-20s in London aren't white.

Now, this statistic appears to be genuine for once (although the report it comes from describes it as an 'experimental statistic' from 2006), but what intrigues me is why the Mail chose it. For a start, most people who are broadly against immigration insist that they're not concerned with race, so why on earth is that an interesting statistic in and of itself? It undoubtedly includes large numbers of second- and third-generation 'immigrants' who are as British as anyone else unless you're Nick Griffin or some other idiot who thinks that the 'just because a dog is born in a stable doesn't mean it's a horse' analogy is a sophisticated argument.

The other thing that strikes me is that the report it comes from is overwhelmingly not about race. They've taken this stat from the ONS' Regional Trends 41 report, which this year is focusing on children. It's a big report, with numerous sections, and the Mail has culled this statistic from the first part, which is 29 pages long. One section of one page refers to the ethnicity of children, but the report is massively wide-ranging. It concludes, among other things, that income deprivation is the primary factor in regional differences between children's welfare. So this section of the report is about child poverty, immunisation levels, obesity, educational performance and so on, while the wider report has a big section on regional differences and how they correlate with the status of women in business. And what's the Mail concerned with? Pulling the stat about skin colour out of its context in the report and tossing it forth as if it were significant on its own.

Inevitably, they wheel out Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch to moan about 'the massive change that is taking place to our society at a rapid pace and without the indigenous population ever being consulted'. The text of the article isn't particularly interesting, but it is curious the way the Mail does this sort of thing, putting forward these kind of statistics with a fairly clear disapproving tone which their readers can then pick up and run with. And oh, how they run:

Make that 7 in 10 and i might believe it.
- Mike, London, England, 25/6/2009 8:01

Yeah, you read that right, he's asking to have the statistics massively increased based on his no doubt impeccably-researched reckonings. I wonder if he used the same fool-proof sampling system as this next genius:

Do tell! To anyone like me who regularly uses public transport in London, this is stating the obvious.
- Peter North, Sutton, Surrey, 25/6/2009 0:26

A less accomplished writer than me might at this point make a crude joke involving Peter North's famous namesake, but I'm going to use this sentence to gloss over the fact that I couldn't think of a good one while still brazenly making the reference anyway in a quite rubbish way. Anyway, here's Graeme from Winchester going for the commenting money-shot with finesse:

The British establishment are globalist traitors.
- Graeme, Winchester,England, 25/6/2009 5:49

Short, punchy, harsh words indeed, but he seems almost impotent next to this guy:

If a person cannot see the great danger they must either be stupid or welcome the coming disaster. I told friends in London in 1990 that if this population growth continues it will explode. "No problem, the numbers are slowing down anyway" they said. I fear civil war just like in Yugoslavia as the EU flounders and the UK as a viable nation state disintegrates.
- david newall, Leeds and Australia, 25/6/2009 6:07

A pretty heavy comment there, but what else would you expect from a man who seeingly bestrides the world like a Colossus, one foot in Leeds, the other in Australia, as he rains down prophetic jizz upon our reluctant faces? There's really nothing you can do but admire the kind of man who can unironically put two continents in his location while predicting that immigration will lead to civil war. At least David Newall seems to have plenty of people on his side in the upcoming race war, given that his comment has a positive rating of 101 while someone suggesting that skin colour shouldn't matter is getting a kicking to the tune of 137 negative votes at the time of writing. One can only pray for David that when the time comes, the war takes the forum of an angry online click-voting battle.