Monday, April 23, 2007

40 criminal gangs in uk from Europe


BRITISH security services are covertly tailing more than 40 criminal cells run by recent immigrants from eastern Europe.

The gangs, operating across the ­country, are understood to be involved in people trafficking, prostitution, money-laundering, extortion and drugs.

A well-placed Home Office source told the Sunday Express that the cells have thrived since Christmas when the UK open­ed its borders to EU newcomers Bul­garia and Romania.

The Government was repeatedly war­ned of a likely influx of criminals – ­particularly from Bulgaria, renowned as the most lawless nation on the continent.

It is understood two gangs have already had their bank accounts secretly frozen, after investigators found they had accrued more than £15million in just four months.

Don’t ya just love immigration? Within 4 months these gangs have already accumulated £15 million and they haven’t even had the right to be in this country for that long. Imagine what it’s going to be like in just a few months.

Immigrants – doing the jobs Brits won’t do.

21 comments:

james higham said...

Thanks for the tip.

theinquisitor said...

This may be a bit off-topic, but I have just noticed that a link to the Southampton branch of the BNP shows them standing in front of the National flag, and it is upside down!
Historically, this once meant surrender to the enemy; what a gift to the MSM! and what a crew of knuckle-heads.

Anonymous said...

Good site keep up the work, have you seen this good site yet.

Put a link on to your site.

http://bnpaberdeen.blogspot.com/

Ian Appleby said...

Any news on how many home-grown gangs are the subject of the security services' interest?

Lord Nazh said...

Good thing guns are illegal in England :)


Gangs will always be present, whether they be immigrant enabled or not. The only difference is whether they are illegal-immigrant enabled. Not precisely sure what the UK immigration laws are, so can't comment on that aspect.

Ruthie said...

Bulgaria? Really?

I find that surprising, for some reason.

youdontknowme said...

"Any news on how many home-grown gangs are the subject of the security services' interest?"

no and why should I care? If we didn't allow immigrants we would have 40 less and we would have 1/8th less criminals. we get rid of a whole load of other things too.


"The only difference is whether they are illegal-immigrant enabled."

Those from E. Europe are all legal.


"Bulgaria? Really?

I find that surprising, for some reason"

Really? you shouldn't. they are the most unlawful country in europe. when they entered europe they cancelled 80,000 trials and freed 1,500 criminals and because of the eu those people can now enter britain.

Ian Appleby said...

Why should you care? Well, for one thing, because evidence from one part of the West Midlands suggests that areas with a mixed population have lower rates of crime than areas where the 'indigenous' population predominates.

What else would it get rid of?

youdontknowme said...

You got that from one area? very scientific I see. Why did you miss london and all the other bastions of multiculturalism?

Ian Appleby said...

You've read the detailed breakdown in that link, I trust? What are your criteria for designating somewhere a 'bastion of multiculturalism', and do none of the neighbourhoods described in that piece meet those criteria? You clearly know how it is possible to extrapolate trends from a case study. If you've got similarly detailed statistics for other areas, let's see 'em.

Oh, and I'm still interested in this "whole load of other things" that we would get rid of if we were to ban immigration. What would they be, then?

pommygranate said...

The most frustrating aspect of illegal immigration is the system's inability to send convicted criminals back to their country of origin if some latte-sipping judge from Notting Hill decides that life might be a tad nastier over there.

youdontknowme said...

You've read the detailed breakdown in that link, I trust?

Well I stopped reading when I go to "the detailed breakdown of the non-white population is of no real consequence." because we do need to know that. It's a well known fact that people of indian origin (hindus and sikhs) have lower crime rates, as do those from the japan-china area.

Seeing as they mention Sandwell I will do a little research of my own:

http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=276803&c=sandwell&d=13&e=16&g=376276&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&enc=1

The none white population is as he says. The black population is only at around 3.4%. The hindu and sikh population make up 8% this is a lot when the none whites make up 20%

Next we have to look at age. Almost half the population are either children (toddlers, teenagers) or OAP. These peoople are not likely to commit a crime especially those in nappies or with zimmer frames.

Anyway who cares anyway. Its just one area.

According to professor Alan O'reilly the none white population of this country only contributes half of what it should. I think he said that they only contribute 4% of our GDP eventhough they make up 8% of the population. Don't quote me on the exact figures though.


Oh, and I'm still interested in this "whole load of other things" that we would get rid of if we were to ban immigration.

Do I really have to go into them? They are all on my blog. Just look. I will give you a small selection but you can do the rest:

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2007/04/40-criminal-gangs-in-uk-from-europe.html

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2007/04/official-poor-suffer-most-from.html

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2007/03/immigrant-pregnancies-bbc-has-been-told.html

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2007/03/immigration-causes-shortage-of-homes.html

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2007/02/eu-expansion-leads-to-crime-wave-they.html

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2007/01/immigrants-getting-kidneys-that-brits.html

http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2006/09/schools-overwhelmed-by-immigrants.html

Ian Appleby said...

YDKM, you managed a much better standard of argument last time I was here. For starters, we don't need a detailed breakdown of the none-white population when the main contention is that crime rates are higher in majority white areas than in more mixed areas.

Secondly, on what are you basing the risible statement "It's a well known fact that people of indian origin (hindus and sikhs) have lower crime rates, as do those from the japan-china area."?

Thirdly, lower crime rates than whom?

Lastly, if you are going to appeal to authority, then at least cite the article or articles that you have in mind. Who is Professor O'Reilly, and where does he work? I assume the apparent coincidence in name with one of your regular commenters is just that.

I love the way you realise you're on a hiding to nothing here: "Anyway who cares anyway. Its just one area." What you mean is, "I can't find a way of spinning this so that it matches my prejudices, so I'll just dismiss it."

PS like your arguments, your links aren't working. I can't even make out the full URLs.

youdontknowme said...

YDKM, you managed a much better standard of argument last time I was here.

Sorry. I have been pounding the streets for 2 days leafleting and I wanted to give a fast answer in case I forgot about your response. plus this is now an old story.


For starters, we don't need a detailed breakdown of the none-white population when the main contention is that crime rates are higher in majority white areas than in more mixed areas.

So we do. Lets look at two areas, Newcastle and London.

We all know how enriched london is. The north east of england is the whitest region of england so I took newcastle as an example because its the biggest city that came to mind in the north east.

As you can see in Newcastle crime is lower in Newcastle than London. Now lets compare Sandwell and London. The more enriched london has more crime:


Here are the links and by the way to look at the links you have to continue copying sidewards. it goes into the margin:

http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/newcastle-4332.html

http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/London.html

http://www.upmystreet.com/local/police-crime/figures/l/sandwell.html



Secondly, on what are you basing the risible statement "It's a well known fact that people of indian origin (hindus and sikhs) have lower crime rates, as do those from the japan-china area."?


I was unable to find the figures but I did find this:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo951128/text/51128w26.htm


Its in relation to question about ethnic breakdown of prisoners.

I also found this which showed 25% of those in prison are from an ethnic minority:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6312863.stm



Thirdly, lower crime rates than whom?

The national average.


Lastly, if you are going to appeal to authority, then at least cite the article or articles that you have in mind.

He never tried to publish them.


Who is Professor O'Reilly, and where does he work?

If he wants you to know I am sure he will tell you.


I assume the apparent coincidence in name with one of your regular commenters is just that.

Doesn't stop him from being right.

Anonymous said...

no, but it does make him a biased source of evidence.

just cos he's a professor does not suggest that what he's written there is part of scholarship!

I know loads of professors, but i wouldnt quote a professor of physics on politics...or whatever this man is a professor of.

unless of course by "right" you meant right wing, da bum tishh!

youdontknowme said...

He did a lot of research into it so you can always prove him wrong

Ian Appleby said...

Hang on a minute, given that he's never tried to publish it, just how are we supposed to disprove it? "Very scientific". If he's never tried to publish it, then frankly it carries no more weight than what "my mate down the pub says."

youdontknowme said...

just how are we supposed to disprove it?

Well I have already said he proves that none whites contribute roughly half of what they should of our GDP. All you have to do is prove they don't.

Ian Appleby said...

Good grief... Let's recap what we have learnt so far: there is no economic variation across Newcastle, or, still less surprisingly, across London. One controversial measure, averaged across big cities, is far more meaningful than detailed breakdowns of the neighbourhoods that comprise one urban area.

Further, for unexplained reasons, people "of Indian origin" who happen to be Hindus or Sikhs- a bonus point for anyone who can tell me the subcontinent's third major religion - and also people from the equally undifferentiated "Japan-China" area, commit less crime than the national average. This is all conclusively proven by reference to the gross totals of people in prison.

And yet, people from ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in the prison population. This can only mean that such people are disproportionately likely to commit crimes, there can be no other explanation.

Lastly, my mate, who's this major scholar, yeah, only he won't produce either his credentials or his research, has proven that people from ethnic minorities don't pull their weight economically. Do you reckon that's 'cos they're all out thieving, or are they just sponging off the state?

Don't know about you, but I'm convinced...

youdontknowme said...

ok. I have emailed him to send me article that he wrote

Ian Appleby said...

YDKM, you realise that immigrant contributions to the UK economy are very much a side issue on this thread, don't you?