The EU debate - Part III

[PowerSpurs]

He is shadow chancellor, you clot not a back bencher

He wasn't in 2012 when the video was made. So who is the clot now!

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I think this is in danger of disappearing down the rabbit hole like some others sadly do. It's often happens when tedious tobes trying to rewrite a question.

The point raised was that shouting 'racist' is just a way of avoiding a discussion. From that, you offered the situation of stop and search as something that you felt was what you would describe as racist.

I disagreed, for a number of reasons, one is that a fair percentage of the officers involved are black. If there's an argument, it could be about discrimination, but in raising it in an argument about the use of the term 'racist' you're actually supporting the claim, as there's more to it than picking on people simply because of their skin colour.

There are incidents that are solely to do with race. There was a Scottish lad burned to death solely because of his skin colour, there are other similar incidents. Anecdotal admittedly, but attacks of such nature appear to get more coverage and a harsher sentence if the victim is black than they do if they're white. That's wrong too.

The point remains, that just calling out 'racist' resolves nothing.

Did you mean to quote someone else? This conversation didn't involve me in any way.

Stop and search was conducted in a racist manner. Whether it's actually racist in principle is something else entirely.

 

[DMD]

Did you mean to quote someone else? This conversation didn't involve me in any way.

Stop and search was conducted in a racist manner. Whether it's actually racist in principle is something else entirely.

I do mix you and t'other spud up for some reason. BUt you do seem to be making similar claims in this instance, so I'll leave it as it is. Your argument is flawed for the reasons I mentioned.

Just because it involves black people, it doesn't automatically make it racist, and claiming it does risks missing the solutions.

 

[PowerSpurs]

I think this is in danger of disappearing down the rabbit hole like some others sadly do. It's often happens when tedious tobes trying to rewrite a question.

The point raised was that shouting 'racist' is just a way of avoiding a discussion. From that, you offered the situation of stop and search as something that you felt was what you would describe as racist.

I disagreed, for a number of reasons, one is that a fair percentage of the officers involved are black. If there's an argument, it could be about discrimination, but in raising it in an argument about the use of the term 'racist' you're actually supporting the claim, as there's more to it than picking on people simply because of their skin colour.

There are incidents that are solely to do with race. There was a Scottish lad burned to death solely because of his skin colour, there are other similar incidents. Anecdotal admittedly, but attacks of such nature appear to get more coverage and a harsher sentence if the victim is black than they do if they're white. That's wrong too.

The point remains, that just calling out 'racist' resolves nothing.


EDIT, this isn't the programme I had in mind, but it makes a similar point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3733215.stm

If you don't think the Police behave in a racist manner then I've no idea where you have been for your life. If you do then what do you propose to do about it? I've made a suggestion, you just go round in circles.

 

[DMD]

If you don't think the Police behave in a racist manner then I've no idea where you have been for your life. If you do then what do you propose to do about it? I've made a suggestion, you just go round in circles.

It perhaps goes around in circles because you're arguing a point different to the one I'm making.

My claim is that the use of the term 'racist' restricts a debate and limits the opportunities for solutions.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I do mix you and t'other spud up for some reason. BUt you do seem to be making similar claims in this instance, so I'll leave it as it is. Your argument is flawed for the reasons I mentioned.

Just because it involves black people, it doesn't automatically make it racist, and claiming it does risks missing the solutions.

I didn't say that it was racist, I said that it's conducted in a racist manner, which it undoubtedly is.
http://www.stop-watch.org/your-area/area/metropolitan

"Black people were stopped and searched at almost 4 times the rate of white people across London in 2015/16, a slight increase on the previous year. Mixed people were searched at almost twice the rate of whites, Asians were searched at marginally higher rates than whites, and people from Chinese or Other backgrounds were searched at lower rates than whites.

There is greater disproportionality under section 60, a suspicionless power, which increased by an extra 83 searches compared to the previous year. Black people are searched at almost 21 times the rate of whites and Asians at two and a half times the rate of whites. Mixed people and Chinese or Other ethnicities were searched at far lower numbers to make any calculations meaningful. In absolute terms, black people were searched 182 times in London compared to 43 whites, 29 Asians, 12 mixed and 9 people from Chinese or other backgrounds."

21 times! ****ing hell. I knew it was bad, but I didn't realise quite how bad.
Ever been searched, Hull? I know I haven't.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Just because it involves black people, it doesn't automatically make it racist, and claiming it does risks missing the solutions.

Stop and search is racist judging by the evidence. The solution is to stop it altogether until we have a non-racist police force. If you have another explanation and a solution I'm happy to hear it.

 

[PowerSpurs]

It perhaps goes around in circles because you're arguing a point different to the one I'm making.

My claim is that the use of the term 'racist' restricts a debate and limits the opportunities for solutions.

How does ignoring the truth do that. The debate has to be about the evidence not 'claims'

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I'd object to Stop and Search on justice grounds, rather than anything about racial bias.
You don't have any reasonable suspicion to search me, but you're going to do it anyway?
Yeah, **** off. That's not how this **** is supposed to work, frankly.

 

[DMD]

I didn't say that it was racist, I said that it's conducted in a racist manner, which it undoubtedly is.
http://www.stop-watch.org/your-area/area/metropolitan

"Black people were stopped and searched at almost 4 times the rate of white people across London in 2015/16, a slight increase on the previous year. Mixed people were searched at almost twice the rate of whites, Asians were searched at marginally higher rates than whites, and people from Chinese or Other backgrounds were searched at lower rates than whites.

There is greater disproportionality under section 60, a suspicionless power, which increased by an extra 83 searches compared to the previous year. Black people are searched at almost 21 times the rate of whites and Asians at two and a half times the rate of whites. Mixed people and Chinese or Other ethnicities were searched at far lower numbers to make any calculations meaningful. In absolute terms, black people were searched 182 times in London compared to 43 whites, 29 Asians, 12 mixed and 9 people from Chinese or other backgrounds."

21 times! ****ing hell. I knew it was bad, but I didn't realise quite how bad.
Ever been searched, Hull? I know I haven't.

Stop and search is racist judging by the evidence. The solution is to stop it altogether until we have a non-racist police force. If you have another explanation and a solution I'm happy to hear it.

I have been stopped and searched yes and on more than one occasion.

The argument you're offering doesn't counter the claim I'm making. Had people just called 'racist' to the incidents, then they would have been investigated and most found to be untrue. The word itself would have been counter productive for society as a whole.

What it took was a wider investigation into the efficiency of the process of profiling.

Stop and search is one issue, and doesn't alter the claim I made, which is that just calling out "racist" is pretty much meaningless and serves more to limit solutions. I've offered some scenarios where the incidents were in deed solely based on race, but they were dealt with in an unequal manner.

 

[DMD]

How does ignoring the truth do that. The debate has to be about the evidence not 'claims'

I haven't ignored it, I've replied several times, but it's one issue on a wider topic. It doesn't counter the claim I'm making, if anything, it supports it.

 

[remembercolinlee]

Should they fail to mention when the accused is a politician or celebrity too?

If it is necessary to report the faith or race or nationality of one abuser then it should be necessary to mention the faith, race and nationality of all.
No one in their right minds agrees with what how the authorities failed to protect children in Rotherham but many seem to agree with their ****ty excuses.
They failed to protect children cos it was cheaper (in terms of paying for services) to turn a blind eye and some of those responsible for doing nothing had disgusting views of those being abused or were incompetent.
They can't say the truth so they lied.
This obviously just my opinion and not a fact.
In the past I have worked with kids who were living in homes where there is violence on a regular basis, or with parents who were known to have convictions for domestic violence, rape, pimping and various drug crimes.
These kids were not even considered to be the most serious cases so were not considered to be at risk so weren't on the at risk register...even though they were violent to other kids, adults they worked with and on occasions strangers. These kids were all under 10 and had been expelled from at least one school.
This is the case up and down the country.
It has nothing to do with the parents race (most are white) and everything to do with money and ideology ... again, only in my opinion.

 

[DMD]

If it is necessary to report the faith or race or nationality of one abuser then it should be necessary to mention the faith, race and nationality of all.
No one in their right minds agrees with what how the authorities failed to protect children in Rotherham but many seem to agree with their ****ty excuses.
They failed to protect children cos it was cheaper (in terms of paying for services) to turn a blind eye and some of those responsible for doing nothing had disgusting views of those being abused or were incompetent.
They can't say the truth so they lied.
This obviously just my opinion and not a fact.
In the past I have worked with kids who were living in homes where there is violence on a regular basis, or with parents who were known to have convictions for domestic violence, rape, pimping and various drug crimes.
These kids were not even considered to be the most serious cases so were not considered to be at risk so weren't on the at risk register...even though they were violent to other kids, adults they worked with and on occasions strangers. These kids were all under 10 and had been expelled from at least one school.
This is the case up and down the country.
It has nothing to do with the parents race (most are white) and everything to do with money and ideology ... again, only in my opinion.

I can see your argument, and accept most of it.

It's drifting from the point that I was making, and well away from the EU, but on an associated note, do you feel that it's right to name the accused before a trial? The argument offered is that it encourages other victims to come forward, so a pattern of offending can be established, particularly in cases of historic abuse.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

If it is necessary to report the faith or race or nationality of one abuser then it should be necessary to mention the faith, race and nationality of all.
No one in their right minds agrees with what how the authorities failed to protect children in Rotherham but many seem to agree with their ****ty excuses.
They failed to protect children cos it was cheaper (in terms of paying for services) to turn a blind eye and some of those responsible for doing nothing had disgusting views of those being abused or were incompetent.
They can't say the truth so they lied.
This obviously just my opinion and not a fact.
In the past I have worked with kids who were living in homes where there is violence on a regular basis, or with parents who were known to have convictions for domestic violence, rape, pimping and various drug crimes.
These kids were not even considered to be the most serious cases so were not considered to be at risk so weren't on the at risk register...even though they were violent to other kids, adults they worked with and on occasions strangers. These kids were all under 10 and had been expelled from at least one school.
This is the case up and down the country.
It has nothing to do with the parents race (most are white) and everything to do with money and ideology ... again, only in my opinion.

Spot on. Nobody was putting pressure on people in power for these kids, so they went to the back of the queue.
The victims were viewed as irrelevant, so the crimes became irrelevant too.

 

[remembercolinlee]

I can see your argument, and accept most of it.

It's drifting from the point that I was making, and well away from the EU, but on an associated note, do you feel that it's right to name the accused before a trial? The argument offered is that it encourages other victims to come forward, so a pattern of offending can be established, particularly in cases of historic abuse.

I can see why a person innocent of any crime is angry at being named as some people will always view them as guilty...no smoke without fire etc.
But I also see why the accused is named , as you laid out. I am torn to be honest and do not know what the answer is.
If forced to make a decision I would say keep it as it is.
Crap answer I am afraid but I haven't got another.

 

[petersaxton]

I'm not 'calling something racist' I'm using an example whose only plausible explanation is racism. The solution is simple - stop employing people as Police Officers if they exhibit racist behaviours. This was a known issue when I was a teenager and if it had been solved then we would have much fewer issues with race relations. The reason it is relevant is that racism clearly affects some people's attitudes to the EU.

On an estate with a lot of antisocial behaviour it's a fair bet that a larger percentage of younger people are involved in the antisocial behaviour rather than pensioners. Would there be anything wrong with keeping a closer watch on younger people than pensioners? If there's more gun crime among black people of a certain age than white people of a certain age then is it wrong to keep a closer watch on black people of a certain age?

 

[Tiddler]

On an estate with a lot of antisocial behaviour it's a fair bet that a larger percentage of younger people are involved in the antisocial behaviour rather than pensioners. Would there be anything wrong with keeping a closer watch on younger people than pensioners? If there's more gun crime among black people of a certain age than white people of a certain age then is it wrong to keep a closer watch on black people of a certain age?

Even amongst the black people stopped you can see that an age group is being paid extra attention. A real racist wouldn't see age, just skin colour and the fact that they aren't stopping 80 year old black women pretty much blows away the argument of it all being a racist thing. Doesn't it?

It's profiling and the sad facts are that a higher % that fit the particular profile happen to be young black males. Stopping the profiling will not fix the reasons that the profiling exists in the first place.

 

[petersaxton]

The EU will COLLAPSE if Germany and France do not begin to listen to people's concerns on immigration and Islamist terrorism, says French PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nce-Germany-lead-French-PM.html#ixzz4QIBsjLBp

 

[petersaxton]

I didn't say that it was racist, I said that it's conducted in a racist manner, which it undoubtedly is.
http://www.stop-watch.org/your-area/area/metropolitan

"Black people were stopped and searched at almost 4 times the rate of white people across London in 2015/16, a slight increase on the previous year. Mixed people were searched at almost twice the rate of whites, Asians were searched at marginally higher rates than whites, and people from Chinese or Other backgrounds were searched at lower rates than whites.

There is greater disproportionality under section 60, a suspicionless power, which increased by an extra 83 searches compared to the previous year. Black people are searched at almost 21 times the rate of whites and Asians at two and a half times the rate of whites. Mixed people and Chinese or Other ethnicities were searched at far lower numbers to make any calculations meaningful. In absolute terms, black people were searched 182 times in London compared to 43 whites, 29 Asians, 12 mixed and 9 people from Chinese or other backgrounds."

21 times! ****ing hell. I knew it was bad, but I didn't realise quite how bad.
Ever been searched, Hull? I know I haven't.

You have to look deeper into the statistics. I bet a few known criminals are searched an awful lot and the vast majority of black and white people are not searched at all.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

On an estate with a lot of antisocial behaviour it's a fair bet that a larger percentage of younger people are involved in the antisocial behaviour rather than pensioners. Would there be anything wrong with keeping a closer watch on younger people than pensioners? If there's more gun crime among black people of a certain age than white people of a certain age then is it wrong to keep a closer watch on black people of a certain age?

Maybe keep a closer watch on those you have a genuine reason to believe could be involved rather than just monitoring all the young black blokes.