Matthew 'Twister' Parris, Dope and the Guardian, Prisons and Punishment, Bed and Breakfast accommodation, Parasites - All Human Life is Here

Amazingly, there are still readers of this weblog who believe government statistics. There are two rules about such statistics, which ought to be grasped by all informed persons. One is that all politically important statistics are massaged. The other is that in socialist societies governed by utopian idealists (such as ours) most statistics are subject to what is known as the 'Bikini effect', namely that what they conceal is more interesting than what they reveal.

One such believer is Grant Price, who (as well as using the ghastly dead cliche about the 'Elephant in the Room', a cliche which ought to be shot) writes: 'The statistics clearly show the country heading in the opposite direction [to the one suggested by me]. Crime is falling, and falling significantly, and when one considers that a staggering proportion of crime is perpetrated by foreigners (thanks to Labour's incontinent immigration policy), the level of criminality amongst the British is falling even more rapidly, despite decades of "liberal" misrule.'

I'm sorry. But where do I begin? 'Recorded' crime is that which has been recorded by the police, which is to say that which the police have entered on the forms which they have to fill in. By definition, that which is recorded excludes that which is not recorded. Much modern crime is not recorded. How might a crime not be recorded? Well, one common case would be when the victim doesn't think it worth reporting. So (for example) the multiple victim of burglary on the sink estate, who probably never had insurance and certainly doesn't now, so has no need of the 'crime number' which is the sole police response to most crime these days, has no reason to report the latest, and many reasons not to. Becoming known as a 'grass' in these parts of our country is a ticket to utter misery.

Then again, the police (who long ago maximised crime figures in order to press for higher funding) now have many ways of massaging them downwards to satisfy ministers (of all parties) who currently want to claim that crime is falling.The first and easiest way of doing this is to be largely absent from the streets, to close police stations or move them to remote locations, to take a very long time to answer the phone and to be of no great help if and when they eventually do arrive at a crime scene. If people (known contemptuously by the police as 'civilians') continue to persist with the charade of calling the constabulary for crimes which the force, I mean service, regards as 'trivial', then thefts are reclassified as lost property, multiple burglaries in one building somehow appear as one crime, etc etc. Not to mention murders somehow ending up in court as manslaughter.

I agree that some figures can't be fiddled, and some aren't. Totals such as those of arrests (though these are often unobtainable) or of convictions are incontrovertible. But these do not represent accurate figures on the numbers of crimes actually committed. Even the remaining diligent and anti-crime police officers (as shown in my 'Abolition of Liberty') are justifiably reluctant to embark on the form-filling nightmare which follows an arrest. They have an incentive to avoid it.

Homicide, I suspect, has sometimes fallen absolutely as hospital trauma surgery skills have increased (and they have, enormously) and as ambulance services have grown faster and more effective, and their crews better-trained in keeping the badly-injured alive. It has certainly fallen in relation to the amount of homicidal violence taking place. Put simply, it is now much easier to make a savage attack on someone without killing him or her. I have said many times that if we still had the medical techniques of 1965, we would have an annual homicide rate far higher than it is. Many who would have died 40 years ago now survive, and their cases are classified as wounding or attempted murder. (See my book 'A Brief History of Crime'.) Bank Robbery is increasingly the resort of the unbelievably stupid, as precautions against it are now so elaborate that the chances of a successful theft are virtually nil.

Then there are those things which are perceived as crimes or as illegal disorder by many of us - mainly to do with loutish gatherings of youths in streets, the kicking of footballs against homes, other similar miseries perpetrated by the young and strong against the old and vulnerable, the feral harassment of the old or handicapped or different (see the case of Francesca Pilkington), uncontrolled public drunkenness, which in the not so distant past would have been dealt with by the police and which they now simply ignore. These are pandemic in urban areas, but almost totally unrecorded. As for the possession of drugs, I think we may be sure that the enormous number of cannabis warnings given are a fraction of the number of offences to which the police turn a blind eye, or about which they do not know because they are not specially interested in finding out.

Above all there is the increasing switch from classic crime statistics to the British Crime Survey as the main source of supposed information about this subject. The British Crime Survey is not an assembly of gathered figures, but an opinion poll with all the faults of such things, and a rather flawed one at that, specially bad at noticing crimes committed against the young, who are the principal victims of many offences. Those who wish to believe that crime (and disorder) in this country are genuinely diminishing are welcome to their belief, even though it must be hard to maintain for any but the most sequestered. But they are deluding themselves. You might equally well believe that the amount of dangerous and careless driving has diminished, when the opposite is obviously the case, or that hardly anyone ever uses a mobile phone while driving, or hardly any cyclists run red lights. Of course they do, but it goes unrestrained by authorities who have ceded the Tarmac to the motorist, and so it also goes unrecorded.

Twister Alert

How can I get it across to some readers that my pursuit of Matthew 'Twister' Parris is not motivated by personal distress, or because I am 'upset' - but by a desire to uphold truth and pursue justice, both of which have been wounded by this episode? It is the truth which has been insulted, not I.

On the matter of truth, Mr Parris twisted my words in a public place, ignored my immediate protests and my subsequent ones, and refused multiple chances to put this right in a civilised fashion. He lives by his tongue and pen, which are surely devalued by the twisting of the words of others. He also has a reputation for being a 'decent guy', 'reasonable' etc, which in my view conflicts with this behaviour.

On the pursuit of justice: Some of you may have begun to guess that the more often I mention Mr Parris's behaviour, the more references to it will find their way on to the World Wide Web, and the harder it will be for him to encounter people who are unaware of his twisting of my words. He may put this right at any time by admitting that he twisted what I said and (preferably) apologising so that I can forgive him, as I wish to do - but currently cannot.

Mr 'Richie Craze' (really? I suppose it's possible) states: 'Perhaps you can explain what part of what Mr Parris said you said you disagree with?'

Well, Mr 'Craze' should know that I have done so here and here (scroll down to 'What I said....')

Though whether Mr 'Craze' actually reads anything here, or just imagines it all to suit his own prejudices, I don't know, given what he goes on to say, which is: 'Given that you've consistently written scornfully of homosexuals, or gays, to use the modern parlance;'

Have I so?

Perhaps Mr 'Craze' could produce examples of these 'scornful' writings.

Mr 'Craze' then adds: 'and stand in opposition to giving them equal rights (I believe you stated not too long ago that decriminalising homosexuality was as far as you would have liked the law to go)'

This on the other hand is more or less correct, though there are important qualifications about the loaded phrase 'equal rights'.

Mr Craze then lurches over a set of non-existent points on to the track he wishes to be on (a common fault in my critics, who even so seldom realise that they have become derailed) by adding: 'then surely Mr Parris's comment was merely an extrapolation of a view you do in fact hold?'

Well no, it surely wasn't - as I have been at pains to explain. I might add that it also certainly wasn't what I said or intended in the discussion at issue. Mr Parris, to his credit, has not sought to seek refuge in this dispute by the wretched excuse that this is what he thinks I meant in general (as opposed to what I actually do think) about the subject, therefore it is all right to pretend that it is what I actually said on this specific occasion, when in fact I didn't. So I advise his defenders not to do so either. It makes them look very cheap. If you say somebody said something, then it is wise to be able to show that he said it, rather than that you thought he thought it.

Bed and Breakfast

Some contributors have mentioned a curious case at Bristol County Court - once again a Bed and Breakfast run by a Christian couple seems to be the object of a mighty legal action. Wasn't the last one about Muslims being upset? This one is about homosexual rights.

There are many interesting things about this case, but what fascinates me about it (and I have yet to see any reports which answer my question) is why the homosexual couple involved chose the Chymorvah House private hotel given that there must be so many such establishments in the area? Was it personal recommendation? Did they search the web? Or what? Even if they had no idea of the hotel's policy stated upon its website ('Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others). Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you.'), how did they happen upon it?

I'd also be interested to know how often they go on bed-and-breakfast seaside holidays together or singly, and when was the last time and where it was?

Just curious, I guess.

Prisons and Punishment, a 'New Parties'

Mr Everett ludicrously misrepresents an answer I gave to a question seeking examples of actions a conservative government might take which I regard as desirable and which would be against the interests of capitalism. He turns this into a programme for a 'new party'. I mentioned neither programme nor party, nor set these forward as such. Why do people do such things? There can be no new party until there is a vacancy, and the electorate showed at the last election that they did not wish to create such a vacancy, being content to be controlled by the existing social democratic political class. I have laid aside talk of political reform until it once again seems practicable. But I'm happy to discuss those things which I favour.

I do not care, by the way, that my wish to place heavy restrictions on private motor cars might make me unpopular. No worthwhile cause exists without this risk. I think the growth of private motor traffic is so damaging to civilisation, peace and beauty that I believe it is time someone addressed it directly. I am sure many others (including many involuntarily enslaved by our car-worshipping society) share this view but fear to express it.

The fact that many goods are distributed by road does not mean that they *should* do so or that no better way can be found than this filthy, destructive, dangerous, noisy method, which makes us dependent for our transport and economy upon some of the nastiest and most unstable regimes on earth.

Likewise, the fact that most car use is irrational and wasteful, and much of it dictated by town planning which creates the need for cars where none existed before, does not mean that all use of private motor vehicles is irrational. There's an excellent case for taxis, and for private cars in remote and hilly rural areas which cannot be practically reached by rail.

Oh, yes, and prisons. I'd like to repeat here a response I left on the previous thread to Mr James Staunton: 'James Staunton, in a post dripping with knowing and superior scorn, accuses me of making a "sweeping assertion" that most criminals don't reach prison until they have a long string of previous offences behind them (he then gives an oddly partial quote from what I said).

'Try this, from the Government's own "Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales, 2009" (p.76) "Those offenders with a substantial previous criminal history are most likely to receive a custodial sentence. In 2009, 38 per cent of sentenced offenders with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions received a custodial sentence compared with 15 per cent for those with only one or two previous sanctions. Although there are a substantial number of sentenced first time offenders receiving custodial sentences, 26 per cent in 2009 compared with 18 per cent in 2000, these are offenders whose first conviction is for a relatively serious offence in contrast to the majority of offenders who have a longer criminal history of minor offences.

' "In 2009, seven per cent of juveniles receiving a custodial sentence had no previous criminal history compared with 10 per cent for adult offenders. For both age groups the proportion of custodial sentences given to offenders with 15 or more previous sanctions has risen steadily since 2000."
'The accompanying Table 6.2 backs this up. I would go into more detail, but alas the Ministry of Injustice confesses that it does not possess or tabulate statistics on this subject which address the matter more closely. I have no doubt that, were they available all figures would back up my contention. Does Mr Staunton know any better?
'He also objects that I don't provide the Soma report, as mentioned. I had thought I'd given enough co-ordinates for anyone to find it. He might try here:
'http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attacheme...'

Guardians of what?

Some of you may have seen my brief article in 'The Guardian' today. (Wednesday 15th December)

This arose out of a brief letter I wrote to the Guardian in my defence, after Decca Aitkenhead's original article was published. The paper's comment section generously and properly offered me a little extra space in which to make my point. The response to this which came from the readers of that newspaper is very telling. Hardly a single comment actually addressed the point I make. Almost all were marinated in personal fury, resentment and loathing. It is shocking to realise that most of these people probably imagine themselves to be well-educated.

After reading these comments, I reflected that:

I didn't say I have no prejudices - of course I do, and so does any man. But I did say that I don't let them get in the way of facts, as Ms Aitkenhead and Professor David Nutt had suggested in the pages of the Guardian. To support this defence I cited evidence of scientific concern about the effects of cannabis on mental illness, a matter on which I had wrongly been accused of 'baseless alarmism'.

And I pointed out that in this case the facts were on my side, as Professor Nutt had made a statement about the treatment of cannabis possession in which he appeared to have let prejudice get in the way of the facts.

That, basically, was it. I am more and more convinced (and there is evidence of this here too) that drug abuse makes its victims angry and intolerant lobbyists for selfishness. I don't mind them disagreeing. But I am alarmed by the intolerant, censorious rage with which they attack my freedom to disagree with them. The contention that self-stupefaction is a private matter with no effect beyond the individual (false in a hundred ways) is directly negated by this furious, hate-filled pressure group, which almost invariably prefers misrepresentation to debate, and abuse to argument.

Parasites

Some points. No, I don't regard children, incapable of fending for themselves, as parasites. Nor do I regard old or sick people, who through age, accident or illness must now rely on the rest of us to care for them, as such. I reserve the term for those who could shift for themselves but prefer to rely on others, and - while doing so - sink their teeth into the hand that feeds them. I doubt whether many of those involved in the violence of recent weeks are in fact students in any serious meaning of the word.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.