Forum menu
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
To precis that for those who don't want to read all that text TJ quoted:
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.
To be fair, it does do a little more than that, but fails to prove what it claims to.
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 - MemberWe 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
+1 - a point which seems to have been missed by some on this thread, despite repeatedly making it.
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?
You still haven’t responded to my request for details of what the alleged racial abuse actually was. It may well be the police officer was behaving inappropriately, however I don’t have enough facts to make a judgement. Maybe you could provide some? Even then, I’d like to hear the policeman’s side of the story too.
Perhaps the policeman had been verbally abused by you and your drugs gang beforehand and was feeling very frustrated. I don’t know. They are human too and when confronted by people openly flouting the law and laughing about it it’s not surpising they occasionally lash out verbally.
As for the abuse itself, personally I don’t regard (alleged) racist abuse as any better or any worse than any other verbal abuse. Abusing anyone is a rather unpleasant thing to do. I’ve been “racially” abused too, but I didn’t let it get to me. Names mean nothing really. If it happends to you in future, what to do is take a deep breath, walk away, have a beer (a legal drug), chill out and remember that by not abusing them back you are the better person. You’re obviously an intelligent chap, so don’t let things get to you.
a reality that you are not tuned in to.
Not read all of that crime stats report but just a thought- have the figures been 'corrected' or analysed according to social demographic?
Without that, the data might just be a reflection of the demographic that tends to get stopped by coppers for 'low level street crime'...
for example you don't get too many coppers chasing Giles from the Investment bank or whatever down the street when he's 'stolen' taxpayers income
Just a thought?
Den~Dennis - the report is about stop and search. Not chasing people that have committed crimes, not low level street crime. Itscops taking someone off the street and searching them. they are supposed to have reasonable suspicion to do so. However they stop 6 times as many blacks as whites
TJ, step away from your keyboard. Go outside. Ride your bike.
I am just back in. Its wet out there.
i post this purely for the laugh as i know or at least hope it is well out of date.:
The following extract is from a Police Training Manual by David Powis, Deputy Assistant
Commissioner to the Metropolitan Police. What does it show about the way police
stereotype people as potential offenders and therefore label them as suspicious.
The following indices of suspiciousness emerge:
Young people generally, but especially in cars (and even more so if in
groups in cars)!!!
People in badly maintained cars, especially are they have tatty, dog-eared
licence.
People of untidy, dirty appearance – especially those with dirty shoes
(even manual workers, if honest, he says, are clean and tidy)
People who are unduly nervous, confident or servile in police presence
(unless they are doctors, who are usually naturally confident)
People whose appearance is anomalous in some way – e.g. their clothes are not as
smart as their car.
People in unusual family circumstances
Political radicals and intellectuals, especially if they spout extremist
babble, and are in possession of a ‘your rights’ card (as supplied by
NCCL) these people are also particularly likely to make unjust accusations
against the police.
NORMAL PEOPLE
Normal unsuspicious people are those outside the above categories,
especially if they are of smart conventional appearance (which commands
natural authority and respect) and even more so if they smoke a pipe!!!!!!
These points add up to a fairly clear-cut picture: respectable, unsuspicious people
conform to extremely conventional middle-aged, middle-class/respectable working
class modes of appearance, lifestyle and political belief. Anything else is suspicious,
and the further it deviates from that model, the more suspicious it becomes.
Much the same as motor insurance companies, then.
Ah, OK! Hope you had a good ride, looks like a moist time of it in Scotchishland! 🙂
The fact is that police man should not have arrested this man. Actions like this which are regular within large cities simply should not happen. He did not commit an offence, further, a lady did the same thing at the same time & did not suffer the same action.
No wonder that there's a poor attitude towards the police in certain circles, not just criminal circles.
TandemJeremy - MemberDen~Dennis - the report is about stop and search. Not chasing people that have committed crimes, not low level street crime. Itscops taking someone off the street and searching them. they are supposed to have reasonable suspicion to do so. However they stop 6 times as many blacks as whites
I see-
As i haven't read report (oviously) can you let me know if they are stopping 6 times as many blacks as white relative to the whole country or relative to the neighbourhood they are doing the stopping in?
For example, in a 'predominantly white' low socio economic neighbourhood (eg govan?), are there 6 times as many blacks as white stopped and searched....?
Not being silly, just wondering if that sort of thing is allowed for in the stats? 😕
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that there's not a element of racism in the cop force, but I'm alluding to whether or not the stats simply show (albeit skewed a bit by whatever racism there is) how the population demographics are split in terms of wealth/ whether or not you are comfortably middle class with your pony etc...
The fact is that police man should not have arrested this man... He did not commit an offence
Rule 69 (dude!) of [url= http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837 ]The Highway Code[/url] would disagee. Unless you're saying he didn't run a red light?
TJ, I’m not disputing for one minute the report’s findings that the police stop roughly six times the amount of one type of person than another. That’s an easily identifiable fact. An objective conclusion if you will.
However the report then goes on to draw the conclusion that it is because the police are racist. That is a subjective conclusion. There could be various reasons for the statistic in question. For example if one section of society commits six times as many (of a particular type of) crime, then it’s perfectly logical for the poice to stop those type of people six times as often. Not racism, but simple efficient use of police time.
However the report does not consider any conclusion other than the one they have chosen to draw. I conclusion, I should add, that they were almost certain to draw, given the nature of their organisation.
Their’s isn’t good research; it’s research with a pre-determined conclusion. A good researcher considers all the facts.
At best it's bad science, at worst it's police bashing.
kenny = no - they consider other explanations and debunk them. Tehy specifically debunk the 6 times more crime one.
this is a statutory body with legal responsibilities. Its not a micky mouse outfit. They do not have an agenda.
TandemJeremy - Memberkenny = no - they consider other explanations and debunk them.
such as factoring in relative social demographics/income/education for where the stop and searches were being carried out?
sorry, still havent read it yet 😀
Where in the report to they quote crime figures? I've admittedly only skimmed through it, but can't see anything. However the figures I quoted on violent crime earlier on this thread seem to suggest the x6 thing is actually wildly under, not over.
As I've said before, I've no roblem with being proved wrong on this (I'm often wrong about things and happy to admit it), however the figures I see don't seem to stack up against the conclusions the report draws.
If they had simply printed the stats and not drawn their own conclusions from them that would have been better.
no - they consider other explanations and debunk them
Except that it doesn't. It just claims it has.
apologies for going back to this, but have at least now skim read the report's salient points and tried to look in detail at how they analyse the data 😛
I can't find any mention of debunking the possible skewing due to black/ethnic people tending to live 'disproportionately' in the 'deprived' areas when compared to the overall 'white' spread across the uk.
could the figures in the report simply be expressing that cops tend to stop and search a lot more in deprived neighbourhoods?
It does amuse me that folk on here with little grasp of the issues can skim thru the report and decide its bunkum. This is a well considered piece of work based on a lot of hard data from a reputable organisation that has a statutory basis - yo know they can act and enforce recommendations on the basis of these reports? it has to be valid and rigorous.
read the case study on pg 18
Several explanations have been advanced
as to the extent and consistency of race
disproportionality in stop and search,
including theories that the data are
inaccurate, that black people commit more
crime, or that they are more ‘available’ to
be stopped and searched than white
people. In this report we examine these
arguments and find them inadequate: even
taken together, they do not explain or
justify the extent and persistence of the
problem of race disproportionality.
In areas outside London, stop and
search is used less frequently but even
more disproportionately against black
and Asian people (see tables A1-2). The
highest disproportionality ratios for black
compared to white people were in Dorset
(12.5), Hampshire (11.5), Essex (9.5) and
Norfolk (9.0).
There is a breeakdown by london burghough pg 27