Haha, oh honestly give it a rest. I'm a man, and as a teenager me and my friends got stopped far more often than the girls we knew. I imagine this indicates the police's greater suspicion of us which itself might have something to do with young males committing more crimes.
If you're part of a visibly identifiable group that commits more crimes you can't exactly complain that the police end up noticing!
You said male (as they commit more crime) - I'm a black female. Your argument is invalid.
You said male (as they commit more crime) - I'm a black female. Your argument is invalid.
lol, well strange response! You would accept the argument of justified suspicion does apply to black guys? And applies to black females more than white females?
So let me see. This 'discussion' is about whether black people in Britain experience racist attitudes from some members of the police and public or have they just got a chip on their shoulder and really they do not experience any racism at all.
A bit dim don't you think? I would go so far as to say that I think that it is likely that a very high proportion of black men have experienced blatant racist attitudes and behaviour and that it was not isolated cases but happened quite a lot.
I am a middle class white male who works in a suit and tie (actually in Whitehall for much of my career) and I most certainly saw open racism, from bus conductors calling black men 'sunshine' to men shouting 'effing black ape' and so on from cars and buses. Anyone who has ever been to a football match will have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears obvious racists taunting. It is not only directed at black people, Arsenal supporters routinely sing songs about wanting Spurs supporters to be gassed (of course what the media report as racist is the Spurs supporters objecting to this).
It is of course all done by a fairly large vocal minority of people with known personality defects. They are quite easy to spot, and of course it is easy to detect them when they write messages on here.
It is one of the unfortunate aspects of the Web that we must put up with them. My personal attitude is that they should be kept off moderated web sites like this because they do not contribute anything worth while at all.
lol, well strange response! You would accept the argument of justified suspicion does apply to black guys? And applies to black females more than white females?
Your point was that men do more crime. So by your logic, why is it that I as a black female should be eyed up suspiciously? I'm a wee girl, barely 5 foot 3 and keep myself to myself - common sense would tell you I'm harmless, and if anything I'm more likely to be the target/victim than the criminal.
Suspicion based on somebody's race is never justified. It's just pure racism, simply put, because the fact of the matter is not all black people do crime. You need to apply your common sense and observe a person's body language and mannerisms. If they're minding their own business or burying their head in a book there's no reason to stop and search them because they "may or may not have a knife" simply because they're black.
You need to apply your common sense and observe a person's body language and mannerisms. If they're minding their own business or burying their head in a book there's no reason to stop and search them because they "may or may not have a knife" simply because they're black.
I would agree with this actually. I think the police should be much more suspicious of some heavily tattooed white guy who's bald with swastikas on his head, than of a black guy in a decent suit. Ahem, I'm not bald with swastikas on my head btw.
But, first I would say you don't know the mannerisms and appearance of the black people who have been stopped. And you also end up in an endless debate about what properly constitutes dubious appearances or mannerisms, as opposed to what is simply "a different culture".
Your point was that men do more crime. So by your logic, why is it that I as a black female should be eyed up suspiciously? I'm a wee girl, barely 5 foot 3 and keep myself to myself - common sense would tell you I'm harmless, and if anything I'm more likely to be the target/victim than the criminal.
I posted in the page before this one that, according to the Met, black people are more likely to be the victims of crime (twice as likely), so I agree with you on that as well. But now I don't know what your appearance or mannerisms are, so I'll just ahve to accept you look harmless!
But look, it seems to me like the question boils down to this: whetehr the black people the police have been stopping really did look more suspicious, and that's why they got stopped in greater numbers. Or whetehr the police were just being racist. I personally just do not accept that the police are so over-the-top racist that racial bias accounts for the whole extent to which black people over-crowd the crime figures.
Well, I have to say that's the first time I've heard the Ministry of Justice called a questionable source.
Perhaps you'd like to link to this impeccable source that demonstrates the reverse of the Ministry of Justice's own figures?
Dear.
Well, do I need to tell you, do what I did - look it up! Simply google Home Office Crime Statistics, it's there for all to see. If or when you do I suggest you peruse it very carefully, because going by your viewpoints, if you had read the MOJ you must have just skimmed through it, methinks.
So let me see. This 'discussion' is about whether black people in Britain experience racist attitudes from some members of the police and public or have they just got a chip on their shoulder and really they do not experience any racism at all.
A bit dim don't you think? I would go so far as to say that I think that it is likely that a very high proportion of black men have experienced blatant racist attitudes and behaviour and that it was not isolated cases but happened quite a lot.
I am a middle class white male who works in a suit and tie (actually in Whitehall for much of my career) and I most certainly saw open racism, from bus conductors calling black men 'sunshine' to men shouting 'effing black ape' and so on from cars and buses. Anyone who has ever been to a football match will have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears obvious racists taunting. It is not only directed at black people, Arsenal supporters routinely sing songs about wanting Spurs supporters to be gassed (of course what the media report as racist is the Spurs supporters objecting to this).
It is of course all done by a fairly large vocal minority of people with known personality defects. They are quite easy to spot, and of course it is easy to detect them when they write messages on here.
It is one of the unfortunate aspects of the Web that we must put up with them. My personal attitude is that they should be kept off moderated web sites like this because they do not contribute anything worth while at all.
Do you think its fair that car insurance premiums for young male drivers are, on average, ten times that of those for over 30s?
Do you think its acceptable that young male drivers driving "hot hatches" with loud exhausts and thumping stereos will, on average, be much more liable to be stopped by a police traffic patrol car than an over 40 in a small family car?
I would agree with this actually. I think the police should be much more suspicious of some heavily tattooed white guy who's bald with swastikas on his head, than of a black guy in a decent suit. Ahem, I'm not bald with swastikas on my head btw.
But, first I would say you don't know the mannerisms and appearance of the black people who have been stopped. And you also end up in an endless debate about what properly constitutes dubious appearances or mannerisms, as opposed to what is simply "a different culture".
I posted in the page before this one that, according to the Met, black people are more likely to be the victims of crime (twice as likely), so I agree with you on that as well. But now I don't know what your appearance or mannerisms are, so I'll just ahve to accept you look harmless!
But look, it seems to me like the question boils down to this: whetehr the black people the police have been stopping really did look more suspicious, and that's why they got stopped in greater numbers. Or whetehr the police were just being racist. I personally just do not accept that the police are so over-the-top racist that racial bias accounts for the whole extent to which black people over-crowd the crime figures.
Overcrowd what crime figures? Are you referring to a specific area or the UK as a whole? Of course, I would agree not all police are racists and there are many legitimate reasons for stops, I don't think anyone is denying that. What one cannot deny is that there is wide-spread racism among a lot of police officers who target people based on their race and the dispoportionate stopping of black people in areas where the crime figures do not exceed that of whites reflects this.
I would agree with this actually. I think the police should be much more suspicious of some heavily tattooed white guy who's bald with swastikas on his head, than of a black guy in a decent suit. Ahem, I'm not bald with swastikas on my head btw.
But, first I would say you don't know the mannerisms and appearance of the black people who have been stopped. And you also end up in an endless debate about what properly constitutes dubious appearances or mannerisms, as opposed to what is simply "a different culture".
I posted in the page before this one that, according to the Met, black people are more likely to be the victims of crime (twice as likely), so I agree with you on that as well. But now I don't know what your appearance or mannerisms are, so I'll just ahve to accept you look harmless!
But look, it seems to me like the question boils down to this: whetehr the black people the police have been stopping really did look more suspicious, and that's why they got stopped in greater numbers. Or whetehr the police were just being racist. I personally just do not accept that the police are so over-the-top racist that racial bias accounts for the whole extent to which black people over-crowd the crime figures.
This mainly applies to inner-city areas and it's mainly young men aged 15 to 30 years old who are most likely to be victims. In fact, in general males from across all racial groups in other areas are more likely to be victims of crime.
Overcrowd what crime crime figures? Are you referring to a specific area or the UK as a whole? Of course, I would agree not all police are racists and there are many legitimate reasons for stops, I don't think anyone is denying that. What one cannot deny is that there is wide-spread racism among a lot of police officers who target people based on their race and the dispoportionate stopping of black people in areas where the crime figures do not exceed that of whites reflects this.
I'm going by the Met figures (I am still waiting on you providing your Home Office figures btw!), so it would be London I am talking about. You would need to look at the data for other regions before applying the same logic to other regions.
I'm not going to defend the impossible position that there's no racism in the police. There is going to be racism, but I think it's an open question how much racism there is and what the causes of it are. There's also a question of how much unreasonable attitudes the police themselves have to deal with from the community.
What I would say is that police racism would only account for the whole of the crime-stat disparity if you accepted a social conspiracy so widespread and continuous that it's the sort of thing you would expect to hear from a frazzled down-and-out at the crubside.
If black people have greater challenges with regard to poverty, and poverty causes crime, then it would be simpler to say that blacks might commit more crime because of the greater presence of poverty in their lives (or due to toxic cultures that tend to go hand-in-hand with poverty).
As for whether the police would be justified in stopping blacks more often in an area where they commit less crime than whites, you would need to specify what you mean.
Whites would be expected to commit more crime wheverever they comprise more of the population. If they are most of the population, then most of the people doing anything, good or bad, lawful or illegal, would be white. But this is because most of the population would be white, not because whites are more good or bad than other groups.
But if whites were a proportion of the local criminals which far exceeded the proportion they are of the local population, like the 12% of the population, 50%+ of certain crimes that I cited earlier, then yes, police should be scrutinizing the whites more and the blacks less.
Overcrowd what crime figures? Are you referring to a specific area or the UK as a whole? Of course, I would agree not all police are racists and there are many legitimate reasons for stops, I don't think anyone is denying that. What one cannot deny is that there is wide-spread racism among a lot of police officers who target people based on their race and the dispoportionate stopping of black people in areas where the crime figures do not exceed that of whites reflects this.
Well, do I need to tell you, do what I did - look it up! Simply google Home Office Crime Statistics, it's there for all to see. If or when you do I suggest you peruse it very carefully, because going by your viewpoints, if you had read the MOJ you must have just skimmed through it, methinks.
I voted option 2 - in other words I think the UK "has a problem with its police force". That's not to say everyone in the police has a problem with black people, but maybe there is some sort of hang up from decades past which is still effecting parts of the service.
What I picked up on is that the police said there was a gun fight - which was proved not to be true, the only gun fired was from the police, yet they continued to run with their original story as a sort of "cover story" in the hope enough people would believe them..thing is the world has moved on, and just because you have a uniform and a badge doesn't automatically mean we all believe what your saying.......if you look at recent history and current issues, we are seeing similar mistrust of other systems such as the NHS, and armed forces. Need I go further and mention NSA/GCHQ.......these are quite grim times really. I bet as soon as I press "Post" someone somewhere will be "inspecting" what I write on this thread as its such a hot issue.
I can only go by what the media reports (and that's not always 100% either) but it seems this young lad was no saint, maybe, but did they need to shoot him and then release a false version of events...no. I thought we had tasers now as well - why wasn't this used instead?
I voted option 2 - in other words I think the UK "has a problem with its police force". That's not to say everyone in the police has a problem with black people, but maybe there is some sort of hang up from decades past which is still effecting parts of the service.
What I picked up on is that the police said there was a gun fight - which was proved not to be true, the only gun fired was from the police, yet they continued to run with their original story as a sort of "cover story" in the hope enough people would believe them..thing is the world has moved on, and just because you have a uniform and a badge doesn't automatically mean we all believe what your saying.......if you look at recent history and current issues, we are seeing similar mistrust of other systems such as the NHS, and armed forces. Need I go further and mention NSA/GCHQ.......these are quite grim times really. I bet as soon as I press "Post" someone somewhere will be "inspecting" what I write on this thread as its such a hot issue.
I can only go by what the media reports (and that's not always 100% either) but it seems this young lad was no saint, maybe, but did they need to shoot him and then release a false version of events...no. I thought we had tasers now as well - why wasn't this used instead?
There is a whole topic about this incident called "Mark Duggan.." on this page. I suggest you make yourself familiar with it as it contains all your answers.
It is as sweeping as stating that the police is institutionally racist.
I never said that the police were institutional racist on an individual basis. I said that the case brought up corruption and was mishandled. It is the Police's responsibility to protect it's citizens and in this case they did not.
The trouble is, some of these arguments create a considerable grey area. I would think everybody would agree that if someone is holding a gun, pointing it at the police, with the apparent intention to shoot, it is legitimate for the police to shoot. But now if you start to row back on some of those qualifying clauses, at what point does it become not legitimate?
For example, it is said that Duggan had a gun in a shoe-box. Is it then legitimate for the police to stop the taxi, and shoot Duggan dead? I would think not.
It is also said that he threw the gun out of the taxi, although oddly nobody actually gave evidence as to this - it seems to have been an inference, after the gun was found on the grass. I suppose if he was holding the gun, intending to throw it, a policeman could legitimately claim he feared for his life.
The first comments by the IPCC were that Duggan had indeed been shooting at the police, but then this was withdrawn. This creates a sense of doubt in people - how did this story get out?
I just find it all quite messy, and suspicious, but I think many people will say, who cares, he was a thug, good on the cops. That troubles me, as then we are getting close to execution-style punishment of criminals.
The trouble is, some of these arguments create a considerable grey area. I would think everybody would agree that if someone is holding a gun, pointing it at the police, with the apparent intention to shoot, it is legitimate for the police to shoot. But now if you start to row back on some of those qualifying clauses, at what point does it become not legitimate?
For example, it is said that Duggan had a gun in a shoe-box. Is it then legitimate for the police to stop the taxi, and shoot Duggan dead? I would think not.
It is also said that he threw the gun out of the taxi, although oddly nobody actually gave evidence as to this - it seems to have been an inference, after the gun was found on the grass. I suppose if he was holding the gun, intending to throw it, a policeman could legitimately claim he feared for his life.
The first comments by the IPCC were that Duggan had indeed been shooting at the police, but then this was withdrawn. This creates a sense of doubt in people - how did this story get out?
I just find it all quite messy, and suspicious, but I think many people will say, who cares, he was a thug, good on the cops. That troubles me, as then we are getting close to execution-style punishment of criminals.
Except that when you delve into the nitty gritty of this particular case it was far from that.
That is not to say that the police handled everything to perfection and that no mistakes were made.
Comments
You said male (as they commit more crime) - I'm a black female. Your argument is invalid.
lol, well strange response! You would accept the argument of justified suspicion does apply to black guys? And applies to black females more than white females?
A bit dim don't you think? I would go so far as to say that I think that it is likely that a very high proportion of black men have experienced blatant racist attitudes and behaviour and that it was not isolated cases but happened quite a lot.
I am a middle class white male who works in a suit and tie (actually in Whitehall for much of my career) and I most certainly saw open racism, from bus conductors calling black men 'sunshine' to men shouting 'effing black ape' and so on from cars and buses. Anyone who has ever been to a football match will have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears obvious racists taunting. It is not only directed at black people, Arsenal supporters routinely sing songs about wanting Spurs supporters to be gassed (of course what the media report as racist is the Spurs supporters objecting to this).
It is of course all done by a fairly large vocal minority of people with known personality defects. They are quite easy to spot, and of course it is easy to detect them when they write messages on here.
It is one of the unfortunate aspects of the Web that we must put up with them. My personal attitude is that they should be kept off moderated web sites like this because they do not contribute anything worth while at all.
Your point was that men do more crime. So by your logic, why is it that I as a black female should be eyed up suspiciously? I'm a wee girl, barely 5 foot 3 and keep myself to myself - common sense would tell you I'm harmless, and if anything I'm more likely to be the target/victim than the criminal.
Suspicion based on somebody's race is never justified. It's just pure racism, simply put, because the fact of the matter is not all black people do crime. You need to apply your common sense and observe a person's body language and mannerisms. If they're minding their own business or burying their head in a book there's no reason to stop and search them because they "may or may not have a knife" simply because they're black.
I would agree with this actually. I think the police should be much more suspicious of some heavily tattooed white guy who's bald with swastikas on his head, than of a black guy in a decent suit. Ahem, I'm not bald with swastikas on my head btw.
But, first I would say you don't know the mannerisms and appearance of the black people who have been stopped. And you also end up in an endless debate about what properly constitutes dubious appearances or mannerisms, as opposed to what is simply "a different culture".
I posted in the page before this one that, according to the Met, black people are more likely to be the victims of crime (twice as likely), so I agree with you on that as well. But now I don't know what your appearance or mannerisms are, so I'll just ahve to accept you look harmless!
But look, it seems to me like the question boils down to this: whetehr the black people the police have been stopping really did look more suspicious, and that's why they got stopped in greater numbers. Or whetehr the police were just being racist. I personally just do not accept that the police are so over-the-top racist that racial bias accounts for the whole extent to which black people over-crowd the crime figures.
Well, do I need to tell you, do what I did - look it up! Simply google Home Office Crime Statistics, it's there for all to see. If or when you do I suggest you peruse it very carefully, because going by your viewpoints, if you had read the MOJ you must have just skimmed through it, methinks.
Do you think its fair that car insurance premiums for young male drivers are, on average, ten times that of those for over 30s?
Do you think its acceptable that young male drivers driving "hot hatches" with loud exhausts and thumping stereos will, on average, be much more liable to be stopped by a police traffic patrol car than an over 40 in a small family car?
Overcrowd what crime figures? Are you referring to a specific area or the UK as a whole? Of course, I would agree not all police are racists and there are many legitimate reasons for stops, I don't think anyone is denying that. What one cannot deny is that there is wide-spread racism among a lot of police officers who target people based on their race and the dispoportionate stopping of black people in areas where the crime figures do not exceed that of whites reflects this.
This mainly applies to inner-city areas and it's mainly young men aged 15 to 30 years old who are most likely to be victims. In fact, in general males from across all racial groups in other areas are more likely to be victims of crime.
I'm going by the Met figures (I am still waiting on you providing your Home Office figures btw!), so it would be London I am talking about. You would need to look at the data for other regions before applying the same logic to other regions.
I'm not going to defend the impossible position that there's no racism in the police. There is going to be racism, but I think it's an open question how much racism there is and what the causes of it are. There's also a question of how much unreasonable attitudes the police themselves have to deal with from the community.
What I would say is that police racism would only account for the whole of the crime-stat disparity if you accepted a social conspiracy so widespread and continuous that it's the sort of thing you would expect to hear from a frazzled down-and-out at the crubside.
If black people have greater challenges with regard to poverty, and poverty causes crime, then it would be simpler to say that blacks might commit more crime because of the greater presence of poverty in their lives (or due to toxic cultures that tend to go hand-in-hand with poverty).
As for whether the police would be justified in stopping blacks more often in an area where they commit less crime than whites, you would need to specify what you mean.
Whites would be expected to commit more crime wheverever they comprise more of the population. If they are most of the population, then most of the people doing anything, good or bad, lawful or illegal, would be white. But this is because most of the population would be white, not because whites are more good or bad than other groups.
But if whites were a proportion of the local criminals which far exceeded the proportion they are of the local population, like the 12% of the population, 50%+ of certain crimes that I cited earlier, then yes, police should be scrutinizing the whites more and the blacks less.
Now can I have your Home Office figures please!
Would make interesting reading.
This.
It's not. The person up thread was being ironic. I hope.
Well, here's the first result:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/crime-statistics
Loads of results but nothing on crime rate by ethnicity.
Funny that.
As others have said, if you have a source for your belief that the true situation is the exact opposite of the Ministry of Justice's, please link it.
As for having 'skim-read' the MoJ publication, I don't need to as the relevant information is laid out on table A on page 9:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269399/Race-and-cjs-2012.pdf
What I picked up on is that the police said there was a gun fight - which was proved not to be true, the only gun fired was from the police, yet they continued to run with their original story as a sort of "cover story" in the hope enough people would believe them..thing is the world has moved on, and just because you have a uniform and a badge doesn't automatically mean we all believe what your saying.......if you look at recent history and current issues, we are seeing similar mistrust of other systems such as the NHS, and armed forces. Need I go further and mention NSA/GCHQ.......these are quite grim times really. I bet as soon as I press "Post" someone somewhere will be "inspecting" what I write on this thread as its such a hot issue.
I can only go by what the media reports (and that's not always 100% either) but it seems this young lad was no saint, maybe, but did they need to shoot him and then release a false version of events...no. I thought we had tasers now as well - why wasn't this used instead?
There is a whole topic about this incident called "Mark Duggan.." on this page. I suggest you make yourself familiar with it as it contains all your answers.
I never said that the police were institutional racist on an individual basis. I said that the case brought up corruption and was mishandled. It is the Police's responsibility to protect it's citizens and in this case they did not.
For example, it is said that Duggan had a gun in a shoe-box. Is it then legitimate for the police to stop the taxi, and shoot Duggan dead? I would think not.
It is also said that he threw the gun out of the taxi, although oddly nobody actually gave evidence as to this - it seems to have been an inference, after the gun was found on the grass. I suppose if he was holding the gun, intending to throw it, a policeman could legitimately claim he feared for his life.
The first comments by the IPCC were that Duggan had indeed been shooting at the police, but then this was withdrawn. This creates a sense of doubt in people - how did this story get out?
I just find it all quite messy, and suspicious, but I think many people will say, who cares, he was a thug, good on the cops. That troubles me, as then we are getting close to execution-style punishment of criminals.
Except that when you delve into the nitty gritty of this particular case it was far from that.
That is not to say that the police handled everything to perfection and that no mistakes were made.
Are you the forum police per chance?
Just in case:
Êtes-vous la police forum par hasard?
It depends who you are dealing with. I've had black people come upto me and shake my hand. Mainly the older generation.
I've had young black men specifically, talk to me like some race traitor.
I find it strange how I've never been accused of racism by any white person I've dealt with, but have by other black people.
Non, je ne suis pas le forum de la police. Je suis un membre normal de DS forums.