Thread by @cremieuxrecueil

The Home Office rape gang report cited several studies that reported the ethnicities of rape gang members and it concluded that there wasn't reliable evidence of Asian overrepresentation.

But every study providing data showed there definitely was🧵

https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1875007472316084692

If you throw in the numbers from Cockbain's (2018) study, the overrepresentation is on the order of hundreds of times.

If Asians are 6.1% (8.6%) vs Whites being 87.6% (83.1%) of the general population, that report has them at 380.56x (256.06x) overrepresented.

There's no ambiguity.

Large percentages of all the known rape gangs' perpetrators are known, the sample sizes are in the thousands, etc.

And yet, the Home Office is desperate to claim that this overrepresentation is "unreliable".

There's a sense in which it is.

The sense in which the data is unreliable is that it's likely an undercount because of the U.K.'s known, poor prosecution practices.

They have not been prosecuting these crimes in a racialized way, where they're intentionally underprosecuting Muslims and other "Asians".

If you get even more specific than the broad "Asian" label that makes it seems like there are a bunch of Chinese gang rapists running around (there are not) and you looks at groups like Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc., the overrepresentation gets way more extreme.

The Home Office report includes a lot of evidence that they're intentionally lying about Asian representation.

For example, in the section they cite these studies in, they cited a fifth one but lied about what it said. That fifth one included no data, just statements.

That study (e) had one paragraph touching on ethnicity, and they said minority ethnics are overrepresented.

The authors did not "note that this is likely magnified by skewed and incomplete data."

That's a lie the Home Office report authors came up with on their own.

There's a world of difference between "it remains unclear" and "[it's] likely magnified", and the Home Office report's authors abrogated their duty to report honestly to the public by conflating the two.

But this is typical. The report is peppered with lies and inconsistency.

For instance, like Dr. Cockbain, the report's authors love to act like many conclusions are definite and certain, while conclusions that offend people are uncertain and unreliable, even when they are vastly better determined.

This makes their agenda very clear.

People claiming based on blurbs and false statements that the report "debunks" 'Asian' overrepresentation are just repeating nonsense.

The actual data shows massive overrepresentation, and the report provides no reasons whatsoever to think that the data is wrong.

P.S. In the previous thread I posted on this, the charts came out a little weird, but they looked fine when I had them in the window I rendered them in.

Here's a re-upload to make the formatting better and colors more consistent.

Sources:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd87e34…

lgfl.net/sites/default/…

ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati…

ons.gov.uk/datasets/TS021…

police-foundation.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

tiverton-coventry.org.uk/wp-content/upl…