[Closed] A warning to Red Light Jumpers

Too much is not shown in that video.

Only if youare a black man - not if you are white woman

On 28 July 2011, Toyin Agbetu witnessed a young African in handcuffs feeling harassed and eventually being arrested after being stopped for cycling past a red light near hackney mare Street, London.

In this clip you see his frustration at being targeted in what seems a racist operation as the same officers ignored a european woman who did exactly the same thing. The officer creates an excuse that he cannot verify the name of the young man or reconcile him with the name on his credit card despite passer-bys fully identifying the young man.

Must have missed the racist bit, I just saw a ****t making things worse for himself due to his big gob. He sounded more english than african to me too. Honestly it's enough to make you want to go and loot richer sounds.

Can someone tell me what the officer did wrong because I'd be very interested to read it.

Its not an arrestable offence, the police refused to accept his ID. He was a gobby get for sure. However on the surface its an abuse of power and quite possibly racist. He provided them with ID would they have treated a white guy the same? They didn't treat a white woman the same ( if the commentary is to be believed)

Watched the first 5 seconds, thought dumb **** and switched it off! No respec for the law!!!

wrightyson + 1

Reminds me of this.

Hmmm.......

I thought if the police were not satisfied as to your true identity relating to any finE that was grounds for arrest? Seems like the situation there tbh.

Lucky he didnt get done for public disorder aswell with all the foul whiney abuse he was shouting. If he shut his mouth and accepted the ticket he wouldn't have been arrested. Idiot.

Who bets he was running down the street with a big tv last night....?

Racism is a hard thing to explain. Statistics relating to stop and search if you are young male and black are revealing.

🙁 Daft Babylonians

Statistics relating to stop and search if you are young male and black are revealing.

you're a policeman, if you knew that people from a dodgy area of your city were statistically more likely to come into town and commit crimes, and everyone wore a badge saying where they were from, would you be more inclined to stop and search those from the dodgy area?

So he showed them "ID" did he? They would have carried out checks on that which would have put that "ID" you mention in doubt.there is no such thing as an arrestable offence for your info.any offence is if it meets certain criteria like being unable to confirm idenitity. I ask again,what did he do wrong?!

Like I said racism is hard to explain.
Brakes your analogy is poor but makes a point. That is called profiling, in this case based on race. What you are in fact saying is it's okay to stop dark skinned people and search them because some dark skinned people have committed crimes,(but more specifically you don't know what these figures are). If that does not bother you, well I haven't the energy to talk you round.
Also you are conflating stop and search statistics with crime statistics.

TandemJeremy - Member
Only if youare a black man - not if you are white woman

Not exactly Tandem I was given a hard warning some 13 years back and I am White man.

I'm a middle aged white male who frequently rides an expensive bike in the middle of the night while wearing a rucksack.
If the police want to stop and search me to meet their ethnic diversity targets I'd be glad of the company and a chance to chat to them about the marmalade sandwiches, bananas and soya yoghurt I'm carrying.

you could be on dodgy ground with soya yoghurt you know

Who bets he was running down the street with a big tv last night....?

As I know the young mayn in the video no more than I know you, what's the bet you were running down the street with a nicked telly last night? Just as likely a scenario in the big scheme of things, in't it?

As for racial profiling; when I was a yute, we used to get the white lads in our 'gang' to carry any drugs, as they were far less likely, if we got pulled over, to get searched. I've bin in situations where the white lads were told to 'go home' without even being asked their names,whiles us darkies were questioned and searched. I've bin and seen mates racially abused by police officers. Sadly, there were quite a few racist coppers in the local police force when I was young. I hope the situation has changed, and it does seem the coppers today are nowhere near as bigoted, but profiling still exists and is racially prejudicial by it's nature.

The lad in the video is a gobby git but that's not a crime. The copper seemed inept and a bit overwhelmed by the fact an intelligent rational person was asking him questions. As for the credit card, well if it were nicked then he's bang to rights.

One thing is clear though; a number of people on here jolly well have not a clue what they're talking about, as per bloody usual.... 🙄

Brakes your analogy is poor but makes a point.

the point being that there is a distinction between racism and profiling, but that distinction is a very wobbly one

...a number of people on here jolly well have not a clue what they're talking about...

I was at work Elfin so no late night tv hunting here.

But if that chap in the video has that much respect for a police officer issuing a ticket it's probably surely a slight possibility he has similar respect for local businesses and property...

But that's just me profiling.

The straw man here is hurting my brain.

But if that chap in the video has that much respect for a police officer issuing a ticket it's probably surely a slight possibility he has similar respect for local businesses and property...

I don't have a great deal of respect for the police based on a number of negative experiences and numerous cases of them failing in their duties, but I have respect for local businesses and property.

So, where are you now?

Still judgemental and prejudiced, I'd imagine.

"Profiling"...The new name for racism?

Or just being stupid?

Statistics relating to stop and search if you are young male and black are revealing.

I'll bet many of the folk (of all colours) who moan about being stopped and searched are the same ones out terrorising innocent shopkeepers the last few days, thereby pretty much confirming the police as being right all along.

Not watched the video yet because I can't right now, but the subsequent discussion reminds me of a little tale.

A mate of mine used to drive a Sierra Cosworth back in the day. Ford tiger stripes, wide wheels and lowered to the point of the tyres catching on the wheel arches if he cornered too heavily, drove everywhere like his head was on fire.

He was bemoaning his lot to me one day about being constantly harassed by the police. "It's because I'm a young black lad in a fancy car," he told me. He seemed genuinely shocked when I suggested that it might just be because he drove like a ****.

I don't doubt that racism occurs, and I expect in the 70s / 80s it was endemic in and out of the police forces (though I'd hope it's considerably less these days); however, I'd reject the implication that that's the only reason that youths of darker skin get stopped by the police. To wit,

Statistics relating to stop and search if you are young male and black are revealing.

I'm sure they are, but you need to be very careful about what conclusion you draw from that. Does it imply prejudice, or does it indicate the demographic most likely to be behaving in a manner that would draw attention / merit a stop & search?

I live in East Lancashire, and the vast majority of lunatic (fast, erratic) drivers I see are a) male as close to exclusively as makes no odds, b) young in the vast majority of cases, and c) black probably more often than not but less of a majority than the others. Ie, the largest demographic I'd expect to be stopped are young black men; the second largest I'd expect to see are young white men. Do the statistics bear that out?

That is so dense and myopic it hurts.

Far more black men are stopped and searched than white. It confirms prejudice according to this

It confirms prejudice

Not necessarily. Could equally be the police targeting the folk they think most likely to be carrying knives.

So you didn't read the report.

No - it confirms prejudice - thats what the report says.

arrests are more likely after stops on white men. Innocent black men get stopped far more than innocent white men.

Far more black men are stopped and searched than white. It confirms prejudice according to this

Conclusion
The pattern of entrenched disproportionate
use of stop and search powers on people
from ethnic minority communities is
[b]consistent with the evidence on racial
prejudice and stereotyping[/b]. On the other
hand, none of the arguments set out earlier
in this chapter provide a satisfactory
explanation as to why in some areas of the
country different racial groups are targeted
relatively equitably, while in others black
people in particular are much more likely to
be stopped and searched than white people.
Arguments based on generalisations
about some racial groups being more
‘available’ to stop and search or more
likely to commit particular types of crime
are highly problematic. The evidence
supporting such claims is unreliable and,
in any case, when making the decision to
stop and search police officers are legally
obliged to have ‘reasonable suspicion’
that the person involved has committed
an offence. Reasonable suspicion must be
based on objective evidence in each case
rather than generalised beliefs about the
behaviour of people from particular social
or racial groups.
[b]The evidence points to racial
discrimination being a significant reason
why in many areas of the country people
from ethnic minority communities, black
people in particular,[/b] are so much more
likely to be stopped and searched by
the police than their white neighbours.
It implies, in other words, that [b]stop
and search powers are being used in a
discriminatory and unlawful way[/b]

I'll bet many of the folk (of all colours) who moan about being stopped and searched are the same ones out terrorising innocent shopkeepers the last few days, thereby pretty much confirming the police as being right all along.

Black people are at least six times as likely to be stopped and searched as white people.

Presumably I missed the bit where they proved that more black men being stopped than white proves prejudice - care to point it out to me?

You've highlighted some assertions there, TJ. I don't see any hard data. "The evidence points to" - what evidence?

given the disproportionate rate what reason would you give here?

I would also like your account of why this disproportionate rate is legitimate

Thats the conclusions based on the evidence gathered. Have a read - there is lots of hard data in it.

Go on TJ, humour me, pick out some of that hard evidence which actually proves their assertions without recourse to waffle.

All sorts of reasons given in that doc TJ linked to - none of which I could see it adequately shooting down with any proper evidence.

I'm not asserting that it is - simply questioning the assertion that it proves racial discrimination.

TandemJeremy - Member
No - it confirms prejudice - thats what the report says.

arrests are more likely after stops on white men. Innocent black men get stopped far more than innocent white men.

So is it a FACT?

so you accept it occurs disproportionately according to race and deny it is racism

TandemJeremy - Member
Only if youare a black man - not if you are white woman

Once pulled over by the Police I asked why me & not the others doing the same, his response...

"have you ever been fishing?"

"No... Why?"

"Because you can't catch them all"

Strangely Im white & he was Black, I didn't cry racist... was I wrong not to? 🙄

so you accept it occurs disproportionately according to race and deny it is racism. So again the reason is what?

Does it consider the race of the officer in each instance?

again what do you mean by fact?
It is a FACT that Black people are 6 x more likely to be stopped despite the FACT

when making the decision to stop and search police officers are legally obliged to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person involved has committed an offence. Reasonable suspicion must be based on objective evidence in each case rather than generalised beliefs about the behaviour of people from particular social or racial groups.

When I dont believe something I have an explanation of what i believe to be the cause perhaps you or aracer or kenny could explain your ratherr than just say that hugely disproportionate usage of stop and search on racial grounds does not constitute it being used racially.
It seems a bit daft to assert that this is not racially motivated but not actually offer an explanation of why this racial disparity exists.
aracer -well see above and [this is slow going] can i refer you to my earlier questions again

given the disproportionate rate what reason would you give here?
What exactly would constitute "proof" for you here?

Before I go answering your questions, do you get the point that a disproportionate number of blacks being stopped doesn't prove anything in itself about whether such disproportion is based on racism?

Proof - something based on hard data. Numbers. Statistics. Not waffle.

Read the doc TJ linked for reasons why the disproportion might not be racism - don't see the point in repeating them here, or coming up with my own original ideas. In at least one case, the best they can do is suggest that it's not proven that the alternative reason suggested is sufficient to result in the disproportion.

do you get the point that a disproportionate number of blacks being stopped doesn't prove anything in itself about whether such disproportion is based on racism?

Proof - something based on hard data. Numbers. Statistics.

I await your answers and feel sure you wont just ask me some more questions...I really do

 

It proves that race affects your likelyhood of being stooped and searched and this is not related to your likelyhood or your races likelyhood to commit crime/s. If it is not racially motivated then what is it based on?

Now this is in no way a realistic scenario, so don't go picking at it - just an example of how such a disproportion could occur. If you want more realistic stuff then you need to read the doc, as too much detail is required to avoid creating flaws.

Say stop and search only took place in London (or even that it takes place a lot more in London than in rural Worcestershire). Given the proportion of blacks is rather higher in London than the UK as a whole, then if you relate the proportion of blacks stopped to the proportion of blacks in the UK population you'll get a dispoportion.

you accept it occurs disproportionally according to race but now you want proof it occurs?

feel sure you wont just ask me some more questions

I want proof that it occurs due to racism

I'll humour you, as otherwise we're going nowhere):

It is highly amusing that you keep asking me to read a document , ignoring the fact that I quoted from it,

The question is, if you've read the doc, why do you keep asking me for examples of how it's possible for a disproportion to occur apart from racism when several are mentioned in the document, and rather better defined than I can be bothered to lay out here?

you use a "hy[pothetical " scenario to support your poorly defined alternative explanation for this

The cherry on his little cake is the fact the document you say I should read actually gives you these figures, by area, in the tables within it

So if the Police arent to use profiling (as its racist..apparently) exactly how do they go about their job? If you're looking for a young black man seen mugging somebody you dont go looking for a white guy do you? I seem to remember hearing somewhere that statistically young black men were more likely to commit a crime than a young white guy..Im happy to be put right on this & if we could remain adults at the same time that would be great..

maybe i'm being a bit thick - the vast majority of rioters/looters i saw on tv were all young black males - does this not justify the profiling then?

Careful Buzz,too observant for your own good! You can argue the toss about stop and search etc, end of the day that guy was a knob, I think this traded him up from a telling off. That and the fact he was on a marin hybrid despite not fitting the profile of marin owners (white/middle-class/bearded)making the officer suspect he was on a stolen bike.

Stats, the wonderful maths used to prove everything.

Once pulled over by the Police I asked why me & not the others doing the same, his response...

"have you ever been fishing?"

"No... Why?"

"Because you can't catch them all"

Most sensible and thoughtful comment so far.

I would offer that the Police Officers didn't deal with the other 'law breaker' because they were having to spend disproportionate time dealing with someone unprepared to take responsibility for their actions.

Elf - are you a "darkie" then?? I thought you were just grubby, as you had an irrational dislike of self hygiene and care (thinks back to BBB 2009.....)

😉

DrP

If young thugs, be they black, white or whatever, would stop carrying knives and guns then stop and search would be over in a few months. I suspect if you speak to the Asian shopkeepers terrorised in their own shops, the Sikhs having to defend their temples, the Turks, Bangladeshi and umpteen other groups taking to the streets to protect their own communities, then few of them will really give a toss how the police restore order, as long as they do. If I was in certain parts of London today I certainly wouldn’t walk down a street full of young black men, I probably wouldn’t walk down a street full of young white men, but I would feel perfectly safe walking down a street full of Sikhs. Everyone, police included, has their prejudices, and many of those prejudices are well-founded.

I don’t argue that stop and search isn’t used on young black men in disproportionate numbers; sadly though young black men feature in the rioting in disproportionate numbers. To my mind that pretty much justifies police actions. And before anyone accuses me of anything, I do know there are substantial numbers of white and Asian youths involved too, and they are as much feral scum as the blacks. You could actually argue that it’s the black community that benefits most from stop and search.

Anyway, to get back to my original point, what I was actually trying to do is point out that the original remark about “confirming police prejudice” could itself be considered prejudicial (although I’m pretty sure it wasn’t meant that way). It’s just making efficient use of resources, without fear of being accused of racism. When the police were targetting the IRA I’m sure they paid disproportionate attention to white, Irish people. When investigating computer hacking I’m sure they focus largely on pasty faced Star Wars fans.

Kenny - you just don't get it do you. Have a read of the report.

Young black men are targeted disproportionately for stop and search despite there being no evidence that this is useful. This causes alienation and distrust of the police. There is no justification for this disproportionate targeting. You are suffering from the same delusion as the police.

It does not lead to any reduction in crime, it is not justified, it simply causes harm.

READ THE REPORT

there is no such thing as an arrestable offence for your info

Yes there is (or at least there was - I've recently found out at least one law has changed in that a permanent driving ban is now possible, so this may have also changed and if so I apologise). An arrestable offence is an offence which carries a possible sentence of five or more years imprisonment on first conviction. However as you infer, the police may arrest you for any offence - an arrestable offence is only in terms of a non-police officer making an arrest

If you get really technical, if you as a non-police officer "arrest" someone for a non-arrestable offence then technically you're guilty yourself of an arrestable offence...

teh police may not arrest you for any offence. They can detain you for various purposes but its not an arrest

teh police may not arrest you for any offence. They can detain you for various purposes but its not an arrest

I didn;t know you used to be a copper too Jezza. I beg to differ...

How can a cop arrest yo for something that minor - say going thru a red light on a bike? its not an arrestable offence - there is no power of arrest.

the cop can detain you for the purposes of confirming your identity - thats not an arrest tho is it?

My apologies for not treating it as an English Literature text to memorise quotes from Well done, you win that point.

why do you keep asking me for examples of how it's possible for a disproportion to occur apart from racism when several are mentioned in the document

Which figures?

So if the Police arent to use profiling (as its racist..apparently) exactly how do they go about their job? If you're looking for a young black man seen mugging somebody you dont go looking for a white guy do you? I seem to remember hearing somewhere that statistically young black men were more likely to commit a crime than a young white guy..Im happy to be put right on this & if we could remain adults at the same time that would be great..

When the police were targetting the IRA I’m sure they paid disproportionate attention to white, Irish people.

you are confusing intelligence led actions with stop and search

The distinction between arrestable offences and non-arrestable offences is no longer. A person can be arrested for any offence now, as long as at least one of a number of possible criteria are met.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestable_offence ]It's wikipedia, but it's correct - read the England and Wales section for an explanation of the old powers and new powers.[/url]

so its not a gernral right to arrest for minor offenses. If a cop wants to prosecute you for a minor offense and you can prove your identity there is no right of arrest.

Pretty much.

If none of the criteria apply, you shouldn't be arrested.

Practically, it hasn't changed things too much I don't think.

Under the old legislation, if you had committed or were suspected of a 'non-arrestable' offence, you would still be arrested if you refused to give your name and address, or there were reasonable grounds to doubt the one you did give.

So he gives one name and then pulls out a credit card with another name on it.
He can be placed under arrest if his indetification isn't provided or the "the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name".

Seems pretty clear cut to me. He got mouthy and ended up being arrested. Don't really see what the colour of his skin has to do with anything.

If society accepts (or nearly has) that it's wrong to stop & search based on racial profiling what other [i]ism's[/i] should we be protecting from disproportionate stop & search, ageism, sexism?

Why is racism singled out for attention, I'm sure you are more likely to get stopped being a young male than of any other demographic, why is that ok?

Crime figures will show that young males commit most crimes so they will probably be stopped more. However you cannot stop and search someone because he is statistically more likley to be a criminal ie just because they are a young male in public you need reasonable suspicion.

when making the decision to stop and search police officers are legally obliged to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person involved has committed an offence. Reasonable suspicion must be based on objective evidence in each case rather than generalised beliefs about the behaviour of people from particular social or racial groups.

gravitysucks - Member
Seems pretty clear cut to me. He got mouthy and ended up being arrested. Don't really see what the colour of his skin has to do with anything.

Amen...

Young black men are targeted disproportionately for stop and search despite there being no evidence that this is useful. This causes alienation and distrust of the police. There is no justification for this disproportionate targeting. You are suffering from the same delusion as the police.

I'm willing to admit that stop and search in general may not be a useful tool, and equally it may be. The fact the police use it though suggests it is useful. If you accept the premise that it is useful (and I admit it may not be) then it makes sense to target the most likely people to be carrying knives and guns ie young males in general, and young black males inparticular.

I suspect the past few days has shown a real hardening in attitudes (from all sections of the community) towards these scum. They demand respect, but are unwilling to respect even their own communities. Bit of a chicken and egg situation I admit, but in the end, no matter who you are, it comes downs simply to "behave like a civilised person and you'll be treated like a civilised person".

Rule No. 1 for a Cycle Response Officer is ALWAYS release your helmet strap when off the bike (so the bad guys can't grab your head via your helmet). FAIL!!!

I can't see the custody officer being too chuffed with that offence turning up in his suite. Shirley it could have been sorted on the street.

Gobby yoof meets nervous cop as well informed bystander films it.

I'm white and I've been stopped and searched for drugs.

To be fair the officer did explain his reasons to me.

He said he was searching me as he had seen me talking to a black man.

Kehhy - I love your logic - the cops do it so it must be useful 🙄 This is despite the evidence to the contrary

Why don't you read the report and get some real info instead of relying on your predjudices.

Why don't you read the report and get some real info instead of relying on your predjudices

Yeah, but that takes some effort and actually having to think for yourself, dunnit?

mrlebowski - Member

So if the Police arent to use profiling (as its racist..apparently) exactly how do they go about their job? If you're looking for a young black man seen mugging somebody you dont go looking for a white guy do you?

That's not racial profiling! FFS. Honestly unsure if this was a troll.

TJ. To be fair, I did state that I personally wasn't sure if stop and search does work. However as the police seem to approve of it, and they are at the sharp end of fighting crime, I'm inclined to go along with them.

As for the report by the Equalities Commission, like so many reports (from all sides of the political spectrum), you can usually predict the outcome by knowing the organisation involved. It's invariably a case of "well they would say that, wouldn't they".

One side says one thing, one says the other, I don't have sufficient knowledge to know which side is right (probably both to an extent) so I make a judgement call, and on this one I side with the guys actually doing the crime fighting.

If there are is a line of traffic speeding on the motorway then the cops will pull the first car in the line, not the whole line of traffic.

Although cyclists travel more slowly I dont see the copper trying to nick 2 at the same time.

Most people would take the easier option at work if the results are the same.

People are too willing to play the rascist card IMO.

I'm willing to admit that stop and search in general may not be a useful tool, and equally it may be. The fact the police use it though suggests it is useful. If you accept the premise that it is useful (and I admit it may not be) then it makes sense to target the most likely people to be carrying knives and guns ie young males in general, and young black males inparticular.

As for the report by the Equalities Commission, like so many reports (from all sides of the political spectrum), you can usually predict the outcome by knowing the organisation involved. It's invariably a case of "well they would say that, wouldn't they".

inclined to go along with them.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to know which side is right (probably both to an extent) so I make a judgement call, and on this one I side with the guys actually doing the crime fighting.