News0 min ago
Street Crime Live - did you notice....
The lasting thought I had of this programe was that it really centred on black people. all the crimes shown in the programme and all the talk around the 171 teenage gangs operating within London, was to do with black people.
The 33 or so teenagers killed this year in London, all bar 3 were black. So my comment is that this programme suggested, to me, that a majority of gang and street crimes involve black people.
Now this then made me think, of poeople moaning that the met were stopping more black people in the street than others. This programme, I think, showed why.
Now everyone commits crimes, white, blacks etc etc. But this prgramme really made think "are you saying that crime is mainly brought upon by black people?" Were they trying to portray this in a discrete way?
For the record I am a white male, so I am not moaning about racism, it is just something that I noticed.
What are your thoughts on this? Discuss
The 33 or so teenagers killed this year in London, all bar 3 were black. So my comment is that this programme suggested, to me, that a majority of gang and street crimes involve black people.
Now this then made me think, of poeople moaning that the met were stopping more black people in the street than others. This programme, I think, showed why.
Now everyone commits crimes, white, blacks etc etc. But this prgramme really made think "are you saying that crime is mainly brought upon by black people?" Were they trying to portray this in a discrete way?
For the record I am a white male, so I am not moaning about racism, it is just something that I noticed.
What are your thoughts on this? Discuss
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spaced. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There was a letter written into Metro newspaper earlier this week which revealed Met Police figures which broke down London (just London, mind you) crime figures.
Apparently, stop and search produces 1% more prosecutions amongst black kids than non-black, but of all people stopped, blacks make up 75%.
The suggestion from these figures is that police are stopping black people unnecessarily.
But the suggestion from the programme is that practically all street crime is committed by young black me.
Which means the police are either stopping the wrong black men...or that...actually...I really dunno what it could mean.
I have a couple of copper mates, and they swear blind that they'd rather not have to go through the rigmarole of paperwork following an arrest if they can possibly avoid it...so I dunno.
Apparently, stop and search produces 1% more prosecutions amongst black kids than non-black, but of all people stopped, blacks make up 75%.
The suggestion from these figures is that police are stopping black people unnecessarily.
But the suggestion from the programme is that practically all street crime is committed by young black me.
Which means the police are either stopping the wrong black men...or that...actually...I really dunno what it could mean.
I have a couple of copper mates, and they swear blind that they'd rather not have to go through the rigmarole of paperwork following an arrest if they can possibly avoid it...so I dunno.
The point is that the police should have a decent reason to stop and search people - a reasonable cause for suspicion.
Just the fact that someone is from a particular ethnic background is not a good reason.
Imagine if the Police started stopping and breathalysing white males on a regular basis because they were the most likely to drink and drive.
After being stopped and brethalysed 3 or 4 times I'd start getting annoyed
Wouldn't you?
Just the fact that someone is from a particular ethnic background is not a good reason.
Imagine if the Police started stopping and breathalysing white males on a regular basis because they were the most likely to drink and drive.
After being stopped and brethalysed 3 or 4 times I'd start getting annoyed
Wouldn't you?
No I would not, jake, not if it meant it might prevent some drunken idiot ploughing into me after he�d had ten pints.
One of the primary responsibilities of the police force (sorry, �service�) is to prevent crime. If they know that a certain section of society is more prone to committing a particular type of crime than the population in general it makes sense for them to concentrate their limited resources on targeting that section of society. To not do so results in the ridiculous situation we have at airports where 95 year old great-grannies are being almost strip searched before they board an aircraft because the authorities do not have the will to adopt a profiling approach in their quest to prevent terrorism.
The business of stop and search (SaS) is always presented in simple terms (e.g. �75% of those stopped and searched are black). What is often neglected is the fact that in most areas where this strategy is adopted black people make up a huge proportion of the population. The next criticism is bound to be �why concentrate SaS efforts in those areas? Quite simple � because most street crime occurs in those areas. There is little sense operating SaS in a Gloucestershire village to the same extent as in Peckham High Road.
You know that all peas are green. So if you�re looking for peas you search all the green vegetables, not the carrots or the bananas. It�s true that not everything that is green is a pea, but the cabbages and broccoli must expect to be a bit put out from time to time for the good of all the fruit and vegetables.
One of the primary responsibilities of the police force (sorry, �service�) is to prevent crime. If they know that a certain section of society is more prone to committing a particular type of crime than the population in general it makes sense for them to concentrate their limited resources on targeting that section of society. To not do so results in the ridiculous situation we have at airports where 95 year old great-grannies are being almost strip searched before they board an aircraft because the authorities do not have the will to adopt a profiling approach in their quest to prevent terrorism.
The business of stop and search (SaS) is always presented in simple terms (e.g. �75% of those stopped and searched are black). What is often neglected is the fact that in most areas where this strategy is adopted black people make up a huge proportion of the population. The next criticism is bound to be �why concentrate SaS efforts in those areas? Quite simple � because most street crime occurs in those areas. There is little sense operating SaS in a Gloucestershire village to the same extent as in Peckham High Road.
You know that all peas are green. So if you�re looking for peas you search all the green vegetables, not the carrots or the bananas. It�s true that not everything that is green is a pea, but the cabbages and broccoli must expect to be a bit put out from time to time for the good of all the fruit and vegetables.
I live in a fairly well off suburb of Birmingham. Most of the people who live here are white (with a smattering of Asian), and own their own houses etc.
We have a new large modern shopping centre, and this has attracted people from a wider area to come and visit the shopping centre, some of course from poorer areas.
We do get a few gangs of chav kids, but to be honest apart from a few they do not look dangerous or a threat.
We also get a few gangs of Asians kids, but again, apart from a few they do not look dangerous or a threat.
We also get a gangs of Black kids. But I am afraid many of them just look dangerous and menacing. I am not saying they ARE dangerous and menacing, but they just look it.
They stroll around with a swagger and an arrogant look that if off putting. Many wear hoddies, and with their dark faces and dark hoods they do look a threat.
I know that when a gang of black kids (boys or girls) enter the new shopping centre the word goes out amongst the security staff that a black gang is around (I know because my daughter works in one of the shops).
Now it may be that this constant negative treatment give them a chip on their shoulder (as jake-the-peg says we would all get fed up with it after a while) causing anti-social feelings.
Of course there is no problems with black people per-se. I am sure if Trevor McDonald or Theiry Henry walked around the shopping centre the security guards would not be worried.
I do think the young black comunity needs to look carefully at itself, about how it dresses, acts, and integrates. If it does not then I think they are always going to be marginalised.
We have a new large modern shopping centre, and this has attracted people from a wider area to come and visit the shopping centre, some of course from poorer areas.
We do get a few gangs of chav kids, but to be honest apart from a few they do not look dangerous or a threat.
We also get a few gangs of Asians kids, but again, apart from a few they do not look dangerous or a threat.
We also get a gangs of Black kids. But I am afraid many of them just look dangerous and menacing. I am not saying they ARE dangerous and menacing, but they just look it.
They stroll around with a swagger and an arrogant look that if off putting. Many wear hoddies, and with their dark faces and dark hoods they do look a threat.
I know that when a gang of black kids (boys or girls) enter the new shopping centre the word goes out amongst the security staff that a black gang is around (I know because my daughter works in one of the shops).
Now it may be that this constant negative treatment give them a chip on their shoulder (as jake-the-peg says we would all get fed up with it after a while) causing anti-social feelings.
Of course there is no problems with black people per-se. I am sure if Trevor McDonald or Theiry Henry walked around the shopping centre the security guards would not be worried.
I do think the young black comunity needs to look carefully at itself, about how it dresses, acts, and integrates. If it does not then I think they are always going to be marginalised.
This is my whle point Jake. The programme last night showsd that most gang related teen crimes where commited by black teenagers. Most teenaghers killed in London, were black.
So is THIS why the police tend to stop more black people? Im not siding with anyone, just merely pointing out something that seems to be being said.
In a nutshell, the programme last night basically said black people are more likely to commit gun and knife related crimes. end of. So is this why the police feel they should stop more black people? Because they are more likely to be successful in finsing a weapon on a black person that a white or asian person.
The police stood outside Stratford Shopping centre all day. They stopped and searched hundreds of people. In the ened there were 3 arrests where 3 black teenagers were caught with a weapon.
What is this saying???
So is THIS why the police tend to stop more black people? Im not siding with anyone, just merely pointing out something that seems to be being said.
In a nutshell, the programme last night basically said black people are more likely to commit gun and knife related crimes. end of. So is this why the police feel they should stop more black people? Because they are more likely to be successful in finsing a weapon on a black person that a white or asian person.
The police stood outside Stratford Shopping centre all day. They stopped and searched hundreds of people. In the ened there were 3 arrests where 3 black teenagers were caught with a weapon.
What is this saying???
vhg.........well spoken. I concur the a big problem is that in the main, they think and/or portray, that they are the greatest thing the town/city has to offer. Very aggressive and provocative with little appreciation of what is acceptable behaviour. I have the feeling that a lot of them carry a big chip on their shoulder.
Do gooders do gooders everywhere.
You want it all ways, on the parts of the program I saw last night the black gang members were acting like criminals and looking like criminals so to me it stands to reason that they should get a tug.
Thick as pigsh*t they want to learn how to speak properly never mind anything else.
You want it all ways, on the parts of the program I saw last night the black gang members were acting like criminals and looking like criminals so to me it stands to reason that they should get a tug.
Thick as pigsh*t they want to learn how to speak properly never mind anything else.
Ok jake so would you describe the young gentlemen as prospective graduates?
Because I call them thick as pigsh*t (which actually they are), doesn't mean i am intolerant, i am purely stating facts. Playing at being gansters and pretending they live in south central LA.
I am judgemental when I see totally inapproriate social behaviour, so I'm sure you wouldn't mind if this lot of dimwits caused panic to your mother or grandmother whilst they were out shopping.
I mean walking around with bandanas over their faces.
To further support my case for them being as thick as i don't know what, when you are involved in anything criminal you want to be low key not in a posse with 20 of your mates.
Because I call them thick as pigsh*t (which actually they are), doesn't mean i am intolerant, i am purely stating facts. Playing at being gansters and pretending they live in south central LA.
I am judgemental when I see totally inapproriate social behaviour, so I'm sure you wouldn't mind if this lot of dimwits caused panic to your mother or grandmother whilst they were out shopping.
I mean walking around with bandanas over their faces.
To further support my case for them being as thick as i don't know what, when you are involved in anything criminal you want to be low key not in a posse with 20 of your mates.
I see lots of criminal behaviour
I see company directors theiving from pension funds
I see pillars of the community killing people in drink driving accidents.
I see businessmen defrauding the Inland revenue
I don't focus on the colour of the people comitting crimes and make assumptions of anyone because of that.
That's the difference.
It seems that New Judge thinks it should be fair game to pull over anyone just because they're young black males.
If as I believe he's a magistrate then that's an absolute disgrace - If he came clean with such views in puplic I think he would be very rapidly posting as "ex-Judge"
I see company directors theiving from pension funds
I see pillars of the community killing people in drink driving accidents.
I see businessmen defrauding the Inland revenue
I don't focus on the colour of the people comitting crimes and make assumptions of anyone because of that.
That's the difference.
It seems that New Judge thinks it should be fair game to pull over anyone just because they're young black males.
If as I believe he's a magistrate then that's an absolute disgrace - If he came clean with such views in puplic I think he would be very rapidly posting as "ex-Judge"
"There was a letter written into Metro newspaper earlier this week which revealed Met Police figures which broke down London (just London, mind you) crime figures."
Did you not see the letter that was printed today, which correctly said that on that letters page there were 2 letters on the subject and both quoted totally different figures. The point being made that they basically made them up.
Did you not see the letter that was printed today, which correctly said that on that letters page there were 2 letters on the subject and both quoted totally different figures. The point being made that they basically made them up.
Just to confirm what I'm saying, you say...
"Apparently, stop and search produces 1% more prosecutions amongst black kids than non-black, but of all people stopped, blacks make up 75%."
But if you check here you will see that it is in fact not true, it's around 35% of all people stopped
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/issues/stop-se arch/stop-search-report-2004.pdf
I'm not saying that the underlying situation isn't true, that black people are more likely to get stopped, but as always with these things people suck up statistics without checking the facts for themselves.
"You've totally ignored SP's main point that although 75% of stops are black there's only 1% more prosecutions. "
maybe because it was made up?
"Apparently, stop and search produces 1% more prosecutions amongst black kids than non-black, but of all people stopped, blacks make up 75%."
But if you check here you will see that it is in fact not true, it's around 35% of all people stopped
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/issues/stop-se arch/stop-search-report-2004.pdf
I'm not saying that the underlying situation isn't true, that black people are more likely to get stopped, but as always with these things people suck up statistics without checking the facts for themselves.
"You've totally ignored SP's main point that although 75% of stops are black there's only 1% more prosecutions. "
maybe because it was made up?
Jake
To accuse New Judge of prejudice is unfair. I think his post gave an accurate summing up of the common sense applied when carrying out stop and search.
We heard these complaints about the old sus laws and how they contributed to the inner city riots at the time.
It stands to reason that if you have 100 offences, where there is contact between victim and offender such as assault or robbery, and 95 of them the offenders are identified by the victim as a young black male, bearing in mind that the victims are not just white but from all ethnic groups,including blacks. The police would rightly be criticised for not targeting the groups that are perpetrating the crime.
Wo Wo
Interesting stats. The section on stop and search under the Anti Terrorist Act supports the above argument. The number of checks on Asians much more numerous than those on blacks.
To accuse New Judge of prejudice is unfair. I think his post gave an accurate summing up of the common sense applied when carrying out stop and search.
We heard these complaints about the old sus laws and how they contributed to the inner city riots at the time.
It stands to reason that if you have 100 offences, where there is contact between victim and offender such as assault or robbery, and 95 of them the offenders are identified by the victim as a young black male, bearing in mind that the victims are not just white but from all ethnic groups,including blacks. The police would rightly be criticised for not targeting the groups that are perpetrating the crime.
Wo Wo
Interesting stats. The section on stop and search under the Anti Terrorist Act supports the above argument. The number of checks on Asians much more numerous than those on blacks.
First of all, jake, I don�t know where you developed the notion that I am a magistrate. It is true that I often quote magistrates� sentencing guidelines in some of my answers, but then so do you. They are in the public domain.
I never said it was acceptable to use SaS against people simply because of their skin colour. What is acceptable � indeed necessary � is for the police to try to reduce street crime in areas where it is most prevalent.
I don�t think it is disputed by anybody that the areas where most street crime takes place are areas where a large proportion of the population is black. I made (and still make) no comment on why this should be.
So my logic is:
- The police target areas where most street crime takes place and use SaS in those areas.
- Most street crime takes place in areas where most of the population is black.
- More black people than others are likely to be subject to SaS.
Unfortunately, the race industry�s logic runs thus:
- More black people than others are subject to SaS
- Black people are unfairly or disproportionately targeted for SaS.
I would be extremely surprised if the proportion of black people subjected to SaS was not far higher than others. They happen to live in areas where street crime is high. Young males commit most street crime. It follows that young males in those areas (who are most likely to be black) are most likely to be stopped.
The Metropolitan Police (who carry out more than 25% of all Stops in England and Wales) have decided that SaS is a valuable tool in their fight against street crime. It is not directed towards black people. It is directed towards young males in areas where street crime is high. Despite the best efforts of the social engineering graduates that the Metropolitan Police laughingly call their senior commanders (armed with numerous
I never said it was acceptable to use SaS against people simply because of their skin colour. What is acceptable � indeed necessary � is for the police to try to reduce street crime in areas where it is most prevalent.
I don�t think it is disputed by anybody that the areas where most street crime takes place are areas where a large proportion of the population is black. I made (and still make) no comment on why this should be.
So my logic is:
- The police target areas where most street crime takes place and use SaS in those areas.
- Most street crime takes place in areas where most of the population is black.
- More black people than others are likely to be subject to SaS.
Unfortunately, the race industry�s logic runs thus:
- More black people than others are subject to SaS
- Black people are unfairly or disproportionately targeted for SaS.
I would be extremely surprised if the proportion of black people subjected to SaS was not far higher than others. They happen to live in areas where street crime is high. Young males commit most street crime. It follows that young males in those areas (who are most likely to be black) are most likely to be stopped.
The Metropolitan Police (who carry out more than 25% of all Stops in England and Wales) have decided that SaS is a valuable tool in their fight against street crime. It is not directed towards black people. It is directed towards young males in areas where street crime is high. Despite the best efforts of the social engineering graduates that the Metropolitan Police laughingly call their senior commanders (armed with numerous
(Cont'd)
...reports aimed at branding the policy racists), it is still among the MP�s tools.
Black people are victims of street crime (and, especially, gun crime) too. They live in areas where street crime and gun crime are big problems for them. If you ask many of them (particularly the older and more vulnerable) they are likely to say that they support any effort by the police to tackle the problems they face daily.
...reports aimed at branding the policy racists), it is still among the MP�s tools.
Black people are victims of street crime (and, especially, gun crime) too. They live in areas where street crime and gun crime are big problems for them. If you ask many of them (particularly the older and more vulnerable) they are likely to say that they support any effort by the police to tackle the problems they face daily.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
News17 mins ago