The EU debate - Part III
- Thread starter Jürgenmeiʃter
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
This is completely missing the point. If you have Evidence you pay attention to it!. The reason I chose 'Stop and Search' is that the police don't need evidence. Therefore the statistics depend only on the exercise of discretion. Most people who are stopped and searched are innocent of any crime so it makes no sense to profile people for it. But I think the result of it being biased against black people is a cause of black crime because they feel victimised by the police. This is why I don't understand Hull's position. When I use a term like 'racist' he says it is unhelpful and causes victimisation rather than discussion. When i give him an example of state behaviour that actually creates victims he tries to justify it!
They're stopped and searched four times as often and those searches don't see a four-fold increase in arrests.
You're also assuming that knife crime is the only relevant crime, for some reason.
Black people in Dorset last year were 17 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people.
Are you honestly suggesting that this is justified?
In fairness anyone who has just come back from two weeks in Tenerife is considered black in Dorset.
I gave you better examples of where there is clear racism, and the call of 'racist' would be indisputably valid, but the subsequent actions were discriminatory.
You give an example of something that is debated as to being discriminatory or not, but which ever, is still one issue and simply labeling as racist misses a lot of the wider issues.
My argument is that simply crying 'racist' doesn't add to a debate.
So you are saying that because young blacks are searched they go out and commit crimes?
Which is why I have not been doing that. It is indisputable that a higher proportion of innocent black people are stopped by the police. Why do you support creating these victims?
Labeling things as racist creates the victims. How many of the Police involved are black?
Not as a direct consequence, but generally speaking if you treat people like **** they behave badly. It's called positive feedback and occurs in almost all human interaction systems. It's rather obvious on this very thread.
People go to football matches and get searched when entering the ground. Do you demonstrate against that or see it as a reason to commit crime?
I get searched when entering football grounds. I don't commit crime because of it.
No stopping innocent people of any colour creates the victims. But more black victims are created. It's irrelevant what colour the police are because people can easily discriminate against people exactly like themselves.
The National Black Police Association Position Statement on Stop and Search.
http://www.nbpa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NBPA-Position-Statement-on-Stop-Search.pdf
NBPA Position Statement on Stop & Search We support the lawful use of Stop & Search in line with the principles of the Best use of Stop & Search Scheme. Our communities do not make the distinctions that exist in law between different police stop powers; effective communication by officers is paramount when using their powers, to ensure the public are not left in any doubt as to why they are being Stopped and Searched. If Body Worn Video is available then this MUST be used for all such encounters and our communities advised/encouraged that they can record any officer who they believe maybe abusing this power.
It also stops abuse by the police, when used properly and consistently.
I'm all for it. I can't really see a downside.
- Status