Forum menu
Thanks TJ, and I've read those bits, they don't appear to address the point I'm getting at.
For example, say in a massively simplified Dorset there was 1 deprived area, populated 50% ethnic/50% white. The searches all occurred in the deprived area- that would show a massive skew in relation to the whole county, no? (BTW I Know dorset is not populated that way)
edit and London borough have a broad mix so breakdown by borough is not even that useful
Well done for quoting a bit where they assert that they've debunked the other explanations, TJ. I think we've all agreed that it makes that claim.
In this report we examine these
arguments and find them inadequate:
Sorry, but that is bunkum. They don't examine the arguments, they just dismiss them out of hand without any justification other than "we're right and that's that".
TJ, earlier in this thread I quoted official figures that came via the Freedom of Information act. Despite prompting, you haven't once commented on them.
Part of my job is to do with analysing data and drawing conclusions. However those conclusions need to be based on hard evidence. I ask you again, show me the part where they have quoted actual crime figures. Simply stating something over and over again, as this report does, isn't very scientific.
Kenny - I suggest you read it and find out - all the data is there. You have an very closed mind to this - you have decided the conclusions are wrong and grasp at straws to find them wrong without actually reading it properly. Yo are determined to find bias in this well respected independent atatutory based body.
Why do they have to quote actual crime figures - although they do run some discussion of this including a breakdown of crime by ethnicity- this is about stop and search
Page 54
There are no robust measures of general
crime rates and how these vary among
different ethnic groups. 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
all the data is there
Except it isn't. If it was, surely you'd be able to quote it, rather than just the assertions (and I'm not talking about crime figures).
Yo are determined to find bias in this well respected independent atatutory based body
It's a well respected independent body with an agenda. I'd no more expect their report on such an issue to be completely unbiased than I would a report from the nuclear industry on nuclear safety, a report from the Conservative party on economics, or a report from a road safety partnership on the reduction in deaths due to speed cameras.
I don't have a closed mind on this. I don't doubt for one minute that more black people than white are stopped by the police. I don't doubt the report's figures one bit.
What I object to is them refusing to consider that there is any other possible reason for this than pure police racism. If the report can show me figures to prove this then I'll happily accept them.
In London last year 67% of people the police took action against over gun crime were black. For robbery it was 59%. However just over 12% of the population is black. Equally, black people are more likely than white to be the victims of crime. Yet in trying to prevent this the police are dismissed by reports like this as being racist.
To my mind, producing a report like this actually increases the distrust between the two sides, and can in fact make the cancer of racism worse. It reduces the respect for authority and gives many of the rioters some dubious justification for their actions.
You ask why they should have to quote actual crime figures? Well simply put, it's because those figures are quite possibly the reason for the discrepancies in stop and search figures.
If anything TJ, you are more in danger of being of being "closed minded" over this, by seemingly accepting the conclusions drawn by this report without considering the possibility they could be wrong.
Kenny = you just don't get the point at all. You are desperate to prove its not racism that you miss the point totally - and your mind is completely closed on this. Pointless discussing it with you. It is illegal to search black people because they are black. Full stop. It is discrimination. Read the case study on page 18 to show that its the disproportionate use of stop and search that causes problem.
Open your mind.
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.
Kenny - unlike you I understand the issues. that the difference.
It is illegal to search black people because they are black. Full stop. It is discrimination
I get that point - it's never been in dispute. I'm also not desperate to prove it's not racism - simply pointing out that the report doesn't prove it is.
As for closed minds - kennyp has a very good point about your uncritical acceptance of the report's conclusions for which there is insufficient evidence.
unlike you I understand the issues. that the difference.
Well clearly that makes you right and us wrong.
So TJ, you think that one case history proves a point? Want to know how it’s done ? What happens is you interview 50 people and get 50 different stories. You find the one that suits the point you’re trying to prove and print it. The other 49 get thrown away. Then people like you read the report and accept that one case study as being gospel truth.
But as as you seem quite happy to have a case study prove a point, here’s another for you. I’ve had a chat with a young black guy who works for our company. He says he’s never been stopped and searched. He did suffer some unpleasant (and inexcusable) racist name calling at school, but he says it was only from a tiny minority of people and most folk didn’t seem to care what colour he was. He worked hard, got good grades, went to university and now has a good job. He’s never been in trouble with the police, but then again he’s never committed any crime (though I have described his musical tastes as criminal in the past). He’s a very pleasant young chap with no chips on his shoulder. He’s working hard and getting on in life.
So, is his case study any more representative than the one this report uses to prove how racist the nasty old police are?
probably a lost cause Kenny. Some folk just aren't able to question the massive generalisations made in the maths to get to seemingly 'scientific' numbers. They must be right cos they go down to decimal points and everything.
Look at TJ's quote above of p54- the use of 'therefore' is hugely unjustified in logic of that context.
Btw I'm not necessarily disputing the overall premise or sentiment of the report, just that the direct logic it claims does not work for the evidence and analysis given. *Still labouring* my point is that (sadly) most black folk live in deprived/'forgotten' areas. This is where the stop and searches are carried out. Po Po doesn't stop and search for tax fraud.
Now if I were to question an independet report on, I dont know, off the top of me head, for example the effects of branding/visual marketing on society, would I be silly to do so? everyone knows what a huge effect that has, right?
I agree it's pretty much a lost cause. He seems so determined to be certain the police are nasty and racist that he's blind to all other evidence. Sad.
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, [b]however I don’t have enough facts to make a judgement[/b].
That hazzunt stopped you though...
As for the abuse itself, personally I don’t regard (alleged) racist abuse as any better or any worse than any other verbal abuse.
Right, ok then. 🙄
TBh seems like you've made yer mind up already on the 'type of person' I am, and your prejudiced judgemental attitude is seeping through the cracks in your attempt to appear all objective and that. You're creating scenarios in your head based on bugger all knowledge, yet then claiming not to be judgmental. Don't make me laugh.
[b]Perhaps[/b] the policeman had been verbally abused by you and your [b]drugs gang[/b] beforehand
😆