Actually , it does make a difference in resepct of the skin colour of individuals when it comes to profiling/ forensics - its really the perception that one group of individuals can be statisically , by their skin colour, be more likely to be a perpetrator or victim of a certain selection of crimes and same can be catalogued, analysed , spliced, the data accumulated be fed into a machine and it will tell you certain facts. But if you are to mention that information within earshot or publish that information then you will be damned. The police/Home office are prevented from releasing this kind of report anymore. Yet Britain senior Black police officer came out a few years back and said the majority of londons street crimes are committed by Black youths. And that is a fact, he said it and people were shocked by this outrageous betrayal by an "Uncle Tom". yet had a white police office said it , in the same vain as David Starkey made his comments 2 or 3 weeks ago, there would be uproar!

a good example is the incredibly disparate correlation between rapes of white females by black and males versus rape of black females by white males.
The latter is rare and the former is disproportionately more occurrent than is allowed for by presence in the general population.

I woud say that anti social behaviour, however, in Britain's county towns,you know pub fights, assaults in kebab shops after closing time is committed by white people.