[Closed] A warning to Red Light Jumpers

What if the police stop & search policy was biased against "people wearing hoodies with their hoods up in the middle of summer."

That could explain the statistical shift without any prejudice against age, sex, or colour.

People are too willing to play the rascist card IMO.

Yep I tend to agree. It's all a bit [i]"Iz it cos I is black?"[/i].

I noticed that the video description mentioned [i]"the same officers ignored a european woman who did exactly the same thing"[/i] and concluded that was evidence of racism.

Could it not equally have been sexism? Or ageism? Bikeism?
Why jump on the race thing when it isn't even mentioned?

(Edit: Ooh I appear to be making the same point as Cougar at the same time.)

I've still not managed to watch the video, but does the woman on the bike get ignored because the police were already occupied dealing with the bloke?

If your race was stopped x6 of a white race and you got stopped for an offence whilst a white person doing the same was ignored what conclusion would you likely reach as to why they stopped you and not them?

conclusion would you likely reach

a prejudicial generalisation about racism in the police perhaps?

right so the victims are the bigots got you

victims

you're projecting [i]your[/i] prejudices on to others there.

right so the victims are the bigots got you

Well the "victims" response here seems a lot more prejudice than that of the police.

If your race was stopped x6 of a white race and you got stopped for an offence whilst a white person doing the same was ignored what conclusion would you likely reach as to why they stopped you and not them?

Ah right.

So you're saying that we should generalise and assume all white coppers are the same because some of them exhibit certain behaviour? Despite the fact that these particular coppers don't appear to be acting in that manner?

Bigotry/prejudice cuts both ways.

it appears Graham and I are making the same point, but as ever he does it much better than me 🙂

😳 I thought you were doing very well Stoner. You used your big words and got all your spelling right. 😆

So you're saying that we should generalise and assume all white coppers are the same because some of them exhibit certain behaviour?

Bigotry/prejudice cuts both ways.

right so the victims are the bigots got you

The fundemental point that you seem to be either missing or avoiding intentionally, and everyone else seems to be trying to explain to you, is one of causality.

If more coloured people than white people get stopped, this may indicate inherent racism in the police force. No-one is disputing that. However, and here is the crux so I'll type it slowly for you, [i]it might not do.[/i] There may well be more to it, as my semi-serious post previously was alluding to.

You cannot simply assume that race is an issue or a cause or even vaguely relevant at all every time something happens to someone brown. Sure, you can't rule it out either, but sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "zomg the police are teh racist" doesn't prove anything or help anyone.

If more coloured people

There may well be more to it

You cannot simply assume that race is an issue or a cause or even vaguely relevant at all every time something happens to someone brown.Sure, you can't rule it out either, but sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "zomg the police are teh racist" doesn't prove anything or help anyone.

No I am saying that if your race is stopped x6 more than a white person and a white person commiting the same crime is not stopped and you are. You may reasonably think it was racially motivated.

You may. That would be reasonable. Though there are plenty of other reasons to consider as others have said (population, profiling, known gangs etc) that may also skew the stats in that area.

Would this really be am eroneoeus or stupid conclusion to reach and one not borne out by facts and caused just by the victims* bigotry?

No, absolutely. It would [u]not[/u] be stupid or erroneous to conclude that there may be an element of racism. Especially if you account for the other factors as the report earlier seemed to do.

But it would be stupid and erroneous to assume that [i]any[/i] time a black person is stopped and a white person isn't then it [i]must[/i] be racism.

of course it does but yours and stoners argument seems to accept that x6 of black people are stopped - this is true- and then suggest that to suggest they are being targeted because of their race is bigoted.

If it is ok with you I will say what i think and you can say what you think 😉

I don't dispute that more black people are stopped. And I don't dispute that some of that is likely due to racism from certain officers.

But there is no evidence in that video that [i]these particular[/i] officers are racist. (It seems far more likely to me that they just don't like mouthy idiots who scream at them and give them false information.)

In other words, concluding that all officers are racist because a minority are is just as prejudice as claiming that all black people are criminals because a minority are.

But it would be stupid and erroneous to assume that any time a black person is stopped and a white person isn't then it must be racism.

If it is ok with you I will say what i think and you can say what you think

the term coloured is not used in this country anymore

Clearly it is, I just did. Either way, does that change what I'm saying any more than, say, spelling mistakes?

I keep asking people to explain what it is

Perhaps we don't have an answer. I certainly don't. However, the lack of a visible explanation to me does not automatically precluede there being one. That's the sort of wooly thinking popular with creationists.

Childish caricaturing of someones points is not usually your style.

Really? Gosh, I'm slipping. (-:

I thought you might let me off as I said seems like saying it was my view of your view

I did, I was just teasing 😀

I dont disagree with the rest of your post and have not been suggesting that ... I am only TJ light FFS and still have shades of grey

I'm sorry - I am unused to arguing against a reasonable opponent 🙂

My only real point was that the guy (and his mates filming etc) just seemed to "pull the race card" - despite the fact that there was no racism apparent (to me) and the guy admits to committing an offence.

To me that kind of "crying wolf" serves to undermine the claims of black people and other minorities who are facing genuine racism.

[img] [/img]

Clearly it is, I just did

I certainly don't. However, the lack of a visible explanation to me does not automatically precluede there being one. That's the sort of wooly thinking popular with creationists.

Really? Gosh, I'm slipping. (-:

wunhundred!

No I am saying that if your race is stopped x6 more than a white person

Given the proportions of the crowds involved in the recent riots I would say that if anything x6 is the police erring on the side of political correctness.

Given that most violence is within the black community itself it seems fair to say that by using stop and search in this way the police aren't being racist, but are going out their way to help the vast majority of black people; the ones who are honest and hard working.

That is no one describes themselves as coloured even if you describe them as such. It is used either as a pejorative term or ignorantly, take your pick

There's actually a third way it can be used, which is perfectly innocently.

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".

why do you not apply this to the police after all they would say it was legitimate but you are

I believe the point I was trying to make is that I don't know for certain who is right, but given that the police are at the sharp end of crime fighting my gut instinct is to think that they are probably correct.

kenny - why don;'t you read the report- it repudiates everything you say.

Blacks do not commit 6 x as much crimes as whites. Indeed there are more arrests as a proportion of those stopped and searched for whites than blacks.

So did he steal a TV or are we just giving the police a hard time generally today?

believe the point I was trying to make is that I don't know for certain who is right, but given that the police are at the sharp end of crime fighting my gut instinct is to think that they are probably correct.

Why don't you look at the evidence that shows he police re not right on this.

Lets go smash up Poundland to show our discontent.

I'm after some Disney colouring in books...

Cougar - Member

If more coloured people than white people get stopped, this may indicate inherent racism in the police force. No-one is disputing that. However, and here is the crux so I'll type it slowly for you, it might not do. There may well be more to it, as my semi-serious post previously was alluding to.

Great!

Uh, what though?

Is it not the case that poor people commit more crime? And are black people more disadvantaged in society, thus leading to lower wealth on average? And is it also not true that if you come from a poor deprived background you are more likely to say disadvantaged later in life? So, extrapolating from those ideas would lead to more black people being criminals because of overt racism in the past - 50 years ago even.

If that were the case then it would be entirely reasonable for the police to stop more black people than whites, would it not? I bet they also stop more poor people than rich ones.

molgrips = read the report. there is no justification for stopping and searching 6x as many blacks as whites. All it does is led to alienation

kenny - why don;'t you read the report- it repudiates everything you say.

I just skimmed through it TJ (it's 112 pages; I don't have all night). What I couldn't find however were crime statistics broken down in a similar way, particularly knife and gun crime. It would be interesting to see a comparison.

What I am saying is that if the Police stopped people who generally were likely to be indulging in criminal behaviour, by the logic outlined above they would end up stopping more black people, quite justifiably.

The fault would be with society over the last what, million years, not the Police.

molgrips - read the report - it shows that that is not the case. there is no justification for stopping 6 x as many blacks as whites. None.

Blacks do not commit 6 x as much crimes as whites

Here's a quote from a Freedom of Information request into crime in London:-

Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; for gun crimes, 67 percent; and for sexual offences, 32 percent

Given the small proportion of the overall London population that are black, that suggests to me that the x6 figure (crucially; in proportion) is if anything an underestimate.

I know much of what I've typed might sound like a BNP rant. However what has sickened me utterly in the recent riots is that these scum are killing their own communities. I've seen interviews with shopkeepers (of all sorts of races) who have worked hard for years only to see their lives destroyed in the past few days. Residents terrified to leave their houses because of feral youth, again of all races.

I'm willing to accept stop and search may not be effective, but I'd like to see an inquiry by an organisation whose outcomes I couldn't predict in advance. Until then, at this moment in time, all I really want to see is the police going in hard, innocent people being protected and the country brought back to some level of civilised behaviour.

Conclusion
The pattern of entrenched disproportionate
use of stop and search powers on people
from ethnic minority communities is
consistent with the evidence on racial
prejudice and stereotyping. 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.
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, are so much more
likely to be stopped and searched by
the police than their white neighbours.
It implies, in other words, that stop
and search powers are being used in a
discriminatory and unlawful way

Honestly mate I'm not reading 110 pages, I've just jumped to a few bits using the contents.

Where does it say there's no justification for the disproportionality?

EDIT - seen that above.

However as also mentioned above - we need to know exactly what proportion of crimes are committed by ethnic minorities, don't we?

the quote above? Stuff on page 50 ish?

I'd just like to ask Stoner and certain others who seem to think the police are as pure as the driven snow:

Have you ever bin racially abused by a police officer in your own country?

As for the 'profiling' well in our case, it went against the police cos the white lads had the drugs. So, as they're busy searching us darkies, the white lads sauntered off down the road, to meet up with us later for a good smoke. Happy days. Outwitting the police was pretty easy, cos they were mainly quite thick round our way (maybe they sent all the underachievers from Hendon to our area...).

Similar to went we went clubbing; we'd just ask lasses to stick our gear down their bras, as girls never got searched in most clubs. 😀

Of the recorded 18,091 such [b]accusations[/b] against males

See that word 'accusations'; it's important, that is...

As for the 'profiling' well in our case, it went against the police cos the white lads had the drugs.

So you're admitting you were part of a group with illegal drugs? In that case the police were just unlucky, and I'm afraid any sympathy I had with you over abuse has just vanished.

I'd just like to ask Stoner and certain others who seem to think the police are as pure as the driven snow:

Of course the police aren't perfect, but when I look at TV coverage coming from London they are a zillion times closer to perfect than the folk on the other side.

the quote above? Stuff on page 50 ish?

I've had a look round about page 50, but can't see anything about crime figures broken down in the same way stop and search figures are?

In that case the police were just unlucky

No, they were stupid cos they used racial profiling, which we knew they would, and we took appropriate measures to ensure we kept hold of our stash. 🙂 Thus proving that racial profiling does not in any way actually work.

I'm afraid any sympathy I had with you over abuse has just vanished.

Oh, so it's ok for a copper to racially abuse someone cos they had a bit of cannabis on them? 😕

Stange logic.

Not really surprised to see you condoning racism though, sadly. 🙁

Crossed posts - that suggestion was not in answer to you

there is this however pg 54.
One of the most
commonly used measures is the arrest rate.
In England and Wales, 82 per cent of the
people arrested for criminal offences are
white, 9 per cent are black and 5 per cent
are Asian.32 Black people are therefore
more likely to be arrested than would
be expected from their numbers in the
population, especially for specific offences
such as robbery.33
There are, however, several problems in
using arrest data to make comparisons
between the different racial groups’
involvement in crime. First, Home Office
statistics show an overall detection rate of
28.4 per cent for crimes recorded by the
police.34 For the overwhelming majority of
crimes, therefore, we have no information
about the offender. Second, the fact that
someone is arrested does not mean they
are guilty of an offence. About 20 per cent
of people arrested have no further action
taken against them, and only about 40 per
cent will be found guilty at court.
Finally, the decision to arrest someone
relies – like the decision to stop and
search – on a police officer’s ‘reasonable
suspicion’ that a person has committed,
or is about to commit, an offence. As the
proportion of all arrests that arise from
the use of stop and search powers for black
people is about twice that for white people,
arrest rates may significantly exaggerate
the extent to which black people are
involved in crime.
An alternative to the use of arrest rates
as a measure of crime is the ‘self-report’
study which involves asking a sample of
young people whether in the past year they
have committed any from a list of criminal
offences. These studies have shown
consistently that rates of involvement
in offending and drug use are similar
among white and black respondents
and significantly lower among Asian
respondents.35 These studies have two
main weaknesses. First, they are only as
reliable as the honesty of the people being
interviewed. Second, although they may
accurately estimate the extent of offending
in the overall population, they tend not to
capture the small proportion of people,
regardless of ethnicity, who are extensively
involved in crime

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

And just why is that ?

Read the conclusions from the report - I have quoted extensively from them. pg 58 IIRC for the main conclusions

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

Ive lived in East London all my life and would say your conclusions are total crap

Just who does most of the crimes and of what percentage, including what we have all seen in London.

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

And just why is that ?

Do you genuinely need it expalining to you [i]again[/i]?

Or are you just trolling?

Surely nobody can be [i]that[/i] dense? 😯

No, they were stupid cos they used racial profiling, which we knew they would, and we took appropriate measures to ensure we kept hold of our stash

Agreed. Hopefully the police have learned from that lesson.

Thus proving that racial profiling does not in any way actually work.

Assuming you actually meant "doesn't", one isolated case proves nothing. If I see a dog with three legs it doesn't follow that all dogs have three legs.

Oh, so it's ok for a copper to racially abuse someone cos they had a bit of cannabis on them?

He called you names; you were in possesion of illegal drugs. Both wrong, but you far more so (I should probably point out here that I think there's a strong case for cannabis to be legalised, but right now it isn't).

Not really surprised to see you condoning racism though, sadly

No, what I'm doing is condemming illegal drug taking. What did he actually say to you?

So you dont have an explanation and then you mention wooly thinking

Blimey, better ring CERN and get then to tear down the LHC. If they don't have an explanation for something, it must not exist.

So you're admitting you were part of a group with illegal drugs?

Ie, the police stopped and searched Elfin for drugs... and would've been proved correct had he not palmed them off onto someone else?

TJ, what that report tells me is that we don't really have the stats, for the reasons it admits - we don't have any data that is independent of possible racial bias in the police force.

Therefore, I don't think you can justifiably talk in absolutes on this subject.

He called you names; you were in possesion of illegal drugs. Both wrong, but you far more so

😯

Are you for real?

Can someone else have a go at this one? I need a little lie down....

Ever occured to you that not commiting crimes might result in you not being called names? Or are you somehow exempt from the law?

Blimey, better ring CERN and get then to tear down the LHC. If they don't have an explanation for something, it must not exist.

(CERN) have an explanation and theoretical model

They've got guesses. We've all got those.

However to continue with your hyperbole and examples.

Examples aren't perfect, or often, strictly serious. Feel free to pull apart my examples rather than admit that I'm right if it makes you happy though.

As you reject racism as a cause

You might want to re-read, I explicitly said quite the opposite.

you accept you dont actually know what the cause is

Correct. Point is, nor do you.

They've got guesses. We've all got those

Feel free to pull apart my examples rather than admit that I'm right if it makes you happy though.

my god there are some blinkered fools amongst us. wake up and smell the stench of reality.

my god there are some blinkered fools amongst us

This is very true...

wake up and smell the stench of reality

And what is this 'reality' of which you speak, Slimjim?

science is just about guessing now?

The Higgs Boson is nothing more than an educated guess. The LHC is an attempt to prove or disprove the theory (which is what science does - otherwise, it'd stop).

It's also largely irrelevant to the meat of the discussion, but at the risk of repeating myself feel free to attack my admittedly ill-thought out analogies if it makes you feel better.

tbh all we have left now is increasingly bitter sniping and tbh you are not worth it

Might be all you have left. I'm not resorting to ad hominem quite yet.

I haven't read the last few hours of this thread, so perhaps the discussion has moved on, but anyway...

How can anyone claim that the disproportionate number of stop searches carried out on black people compared to white is proof of racism in the police? It's very lazy thinking.

To determine if the disproportionate number of stop searches is due to racism, one would have to examine the grounds for each and every stop search and see if they are reasonable, or simply based on someone's ethnicity. The raw statistics do not tell us anything about the reasons for the stop checks. It tells us nothing of what circumstances or information the police based their actions upon.

Disproportionate - yes, the data clearly shows the likelihood of black men being stopped and searched is higher than for white men.

Racist - utterly impossible to determine from the data. Anything else, whether it's in TJ's report or opinion on here, is guesswork.

Kenny =- read the conclusions in the report. pg 58 IIRC

How can anyone claim that the disproportionate number of stop searches carried out on black people compared to white is proof of racism in the police?

You have to remember though that there are folk on here who find anything and everything racist. 🙂

Conclusion
The pattern of entrenched disproportionate
use of stop and search powers on people
from ethnic minority communities [b]is
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, are so much more
likely to be stopped and searched by
the police than their white neighbours.
It implies, in other words, that stop
and search powers are being used in a
discriminatory and unlawful way[/b]

OK, got that bit.

Can you point me to the part of the report that details the evidence on racial prejudice and stereotyping. (I do not have time to read through it all, and I'm assuming you have).

The authors of that report making certain observations about the statistics DOES NOT constitute proof or evidence. They have not even claimed that it does, so I dunno why you are!

Do you mean me molgrips?

If so, I'm not claiming they said it does, I haven't read it (apart from page 58), but it did seem to me to be argued on this thread that the report is proof of racism.

If not, carry on.

read the conclusions in the report. pg 58 IIRC

We started this study assuming it must be racism, and we haven't found any really conclusive proof that it isn't, so that's what it must be

The problem with that report is that they have used the statistics to draw one single conclusion, and not even considered any others. It may well be they are right, but they are using words like "proof" with no justification.

Do you mean me molgrips?

No, I mean TJ who said:

molgrips - read the report - it shows that that is not the case. there is no justification for stopping 6 x as many blacks as whites. None

Which is a fairly absolute statement. I am saying that the report does not seem to prove anything.

I agree. That report proves only that the numbers of stop searches are disproportionate. No more.

That report proves only that the numbers of stop searches are disproportionate. No more.

I have to admit my own prejudice when reading that report - just as I would prejudge a report from BNFL proving nuclear power is safe, a report from the Conservative party proving that the best thing for the economy is cuts, or a report from a road safety partnership proving that speed cameras save lives.

aracer - Member

We started this study assuming it must be racism, and we haven't found any really conclusive proof that it isn't, so that's what it must be

So what do you see as the other reasons it might be? Cougar's doing this too- "It might not be racism, it could be some other mcguffin" but what else explains disproportionately targeting black and asian kids, if it's not racism and it's not justified by results?

but what else explains disproportionately targeting black and asian kids, if it's not racism and it's not justified by results?

The report steers clear of any figures to do with crime rates, possibly because they would run counter to the agenda the organisation behind it is trying to promote.

Indeed aracer, sloppy typing from me. I should have said the data rather than the report. Especially when I haven't read the whole report!

So what do you see as the other reasons it might be?

How the chuff would we know?

Personally I'm offering an opinion on the report, not claiming to understand the complex issues surrounding racism 🙂

Cougar's doing this too

what else explains (it)?

There could be many other contributory factors. I've given a couple of random guesses previously but I honestly don't know. Nor do you. Jumping to the 'simple answer' conclusion may be short sighted; it [i]could [/i]be Occam's Razor, of course, but it might not be.

We're not in full possession of the facts, evidence, contributory factors and analysis; however our lack of understanding does not imply that it doesn't exist (or that it does).

God must've created the universe; what else explains it?

Northwind - perhaps some information about what prompts the stop searches might help. Are they mostly initiated by police officers out patrolling, or in response to things reported by the public, or as a result of intelligence. Probably a mix. If police officers are searching specific people as a result of calls or information from the public, that includes descriptions, that's not racist, it's logical.

Teh report is an attempt to come to an understanding of the issues and it is quite clear - I quoted the conclusion above.

This is not a mickey mouse outfit. Its a statutory body set up to deal with the issues. They are better placed to know what is going on than any of us.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/

I missed this bit,

Cougar's doing this too- "It might not be racism, it could be some other mcguffin"

I didn't quite say that. It might be many McGuffins, all intertwined. You're assuming there's one single factor, I'm positing that perhaps that's not the case.

This is not a mickey mouse outfit. Its a statutory body set up to deal with the issues.

Hehehe 🙂

Personally I'm offering an opinion on the report, not claiming to understand the complex issues surrounding racism

Ever occured to you that not commiting crimes might result in you not being called names? Or are you somehow exempt from the law?

Did it ever occur to you that a POLICE OFFICER racially abusing anyone is actually BREAKING THE LAW and a disgrace to their uniform and the whole institution of Law and Order?

And that someone having a bit of cannabis on them (for personal use only) is, even in the eyes of the Law, a relatively minor offence?

BTW, I have never bin arrested for possession of a controlled substance. Even if I had, are you really saying that it would be acceptable for an Officer of the Law to break the Law and racially abuse me? Seriously?