Forum menu
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.
Perhaps you could explain why this is actually happening and yet your skin colour still affects the likelyhood of you being searched?
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?
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?
Proof - something based on hard data. Numbers. Statistics.
Eh you accept it occurs disproportionally according to race but now you want proof it occurs?
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?
Well the stats seem to say that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, but that's nowhere near sufficient to account for the disproportion in stop and search so probably best ignored for now. I can see you need an example (though you could just read TJ's doc for one - I'll humour you, as otherwise we're going nowhere):
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?
No - I want proof that it occurs due to racism (rather than some other factor related to race).
feel sure you wont just ask me some more questions
Did I succeed? Oops! 😳
I want proof that it occurs due to racism
I know it is why I asked you what constituted proof for you I hope you will answer it despite the evidence.
It is highly amusing that you keep asking me to read a document , ignoring the fact that I quoted from it, whilst demanding hard facts and then 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 🙄 - perhaps you should read it,
I'll humour you, as otherwise we're going nowhere):
Finally we agree 😉
It is highly amusing that you keep asking me to read a document , ignoring the fact that I quoted from it,
My apologies for not treating it as an English Literature text to memorise quotes from 🙄 Well done, you win that point.
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
Which bit of "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" did you not understand?
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
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..
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.
that is an excellent way of admitting your error and that you were wrong ...your humility puts yo in a good light as does your attention to detail.
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
Are you really asking me why I am asking you to explain your view 😯 Should I just let you reject racism [ as a cause here]and not ask you what you think it is then...take it as a fact because you said it? However, given you inability to explain your view or answer the most simple of questions I dont know why I keep asking you.. I suspect I have too much faith in your ability to actually articulate your own view and answer some easy questions. Sorry
Which figures?
read the document you will see.
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..
Even if we accept this as true [ I am not but dont wish to move the goalposts and discus this instead] they are still disproportionately targetted and pulled compared to white people. You cannot stop and search someone because statistically their race is more likely to commit a crime you need much more than that- it has been quoted on this thread from the report have a read. So it is disproportionate to their likelyhood to commit crime.
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 - MemberSo 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.
think that cleared up your view - i may even frame that its
[img] http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/41408799/953300 [/img]
did you read the bit above i posted again about how you cannot legally do this as you need suspicion and race alone is not an actual reason to stop that person you are about to search. What you say [ even is it was true that more black people have knifes - EVIDENCE] it would still not be legal to do so on racial grounds and obviously to do so would be racist as the race is the reason you stopped them rather than any actual evidence.
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
inclined to go along with them.
Nice use of double standards there
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.
Unfortunately they stop too many black people meaning they let white criminals get away whilst wasting time stopping and targeting innocent black people because they are black. there judgement is as flawed as yours.
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. 😆