Madness? This is London!

[usxhe190]

Odd isn't it? In Switzerland the crime figures are very low. They started to creep up when immigration became a torrent, and now they have beggars on the streets and street crime, just like anywhere else in Europe.

To deal with it they are targetting the usual suspects. They know from experience that the Eastern European men are most likely to steal from cars or rob people because that's who they usually catch doing it, so that's who they look for if there is a crime of that nature. A lot of pickpockets are Romanies, that's who gets caught and that's who the police look for if they are told that someone's wallet has just gone missing. It just makes sense.

It's a bummer if you are a Romany of Eastern European descent in Zurich, and you get stopped if a crime takes place, but probably a worse bummer if you have your alloy wheel centres nicked like mine were.

Personally, I loved Zurich. I don't like imported beggars and thieves much anyway, so I have no problem with keeping them out. If, though, they pass through Switzerland and get stopped and searched at the station, it is unfortunate for them, but I think that the nice people of Switzerland are willing to live with that. So am I.

you are taking about two situations

1. when a crime has taken place and they are profiling.
2. when a crime has not taken place and they are profiling for future crime.

1 is ok for me
2 is not ok for me - like i said, if we can profile a person because they are more likely to commit a crime because of their genes, we can profile a person because they are more likely to commit a crime because of where they live. And if you have happy with this, than that's fine because that means you don't mind being profiled yourself

[IBM]

no, I don't mind profiling.

If a white collar crime has been commited, start looking at white collar criminals.

If a blue collar crime has been commited, start looking at blue collar criminals.

It doesn't have to be the entirety of an investigation, but it should have at least some bearing on the case.

If 99% of black people being shot are perpretrated by young black males, then why shouldn't young black males be targetted in preventative measures?

If 99% of local assaults and theft is prepretrated by chavy youths from Moss Side, why shouldn't chavy youths from Moss Side be targetted in preventative measures?

If 99% of financial fraud is prepretrated by degree educated fat cats working in the city....you get the idea. Who would you suggest targetting with preventative measures? Maybe we should be looking at white Anglican vicars from countryside parishes for the guns, under 6 years old upper class Cheltenham girls for the assaults, and 60+ school janitors for the financial fraud.....

[chicken]

Black people were brought out of Africa to work as slaves.
And that has not changed.

What the heck?!

Please do divulge where I might purchase myself a slave, as I was not aware they were still available and it'd be nice to have someone to do my chores around the house...

They are not here to give birth to a new black generation of rulers.
I mean, can you really see any ethnicity AGREEING to be ruled even in part by any other than their own?

I'd be perfectly happy for a black PM, assuming of course I agreed with his/her policies, their skin colour means diddly-squat to me.

I'm not so sure on the wording of "a new black generation of rulers" though... that sounds a bit like you're wanting blacks not to compete on the level with other races for positions of authority but replace them across the board, which would of course be equally unfair.

[usxhe190]

If 99% of black people being shot are perpretrated by young black males, then why shouldn't young black males be targetted in preventative measures?

If 99% of local assaults and theft is prepretrated by chavy youths from Moss Side, why shouldn't chavy youths from Moss Side be targetted in preventative measures?

If 99% of financial fraud is prepretrated by degree educated fat cats working in the city....you get the idea.

yep, the idea is the generalise to the likelihood for a crime into 2/3 general characteristics

seems like the above, you don't mind being profiled for a FUTURE crime based on what you look like or where you lived, how you are educated, etc.

cool, assume a guy is guilty and ask him to prove his innocence...because he has the 2/3 general characteristics

the following is equally valid then:

just like if you drive a sports car, you should prove to the police that you won't speed (sports car + male)
or if you go and watch a football match in italy, you should prove to the italian police that you are not a hooligan (british + football)
or if you live in manchester, you should prove to the police when you enter surrey that you won't steal (manchester + male)
or if you studied a economics degree in university working in a bank, you should prove to the police that you wont perpretrate fraud (degreed edcuated + rich)
or if you go to a pub, you should prove to the police you aren't drunk (male + beer)

[usxhe190]

Maybe we should be looking at white Anglican vicars from countryside parishes for the guns, under 6 years old upper class Cheltenham girls for the assaults, and 60+ school janitors for the financial fraud.....

with your methods:
white anglican vicars would be profiled for future pedofile activity
under 6 years old upper class cheltenham girls would be added to a database for future white-collar crime
60+ school janitors should be profiled for future stealing since they are poor and if they drive, they are more likely to kill someone on the roads...

[Brucelles]

you are taking about two situations

1. when a crime has taken place and they are profiling.
2. when a crime has not taken place and they are profiling for future crime.

1 is ok for me
2 is not ok for me - like i said, if we can profile a person because they are more likely to commit a crime because of their genes, we can profile a person because they are more likely to commit a crime because of where they live. And if you have happy with this, than that's fine because that means you don't mind being profiled yourself

You are right of course. I don't mind being profiled because I am a professional, white, married, BMW driving male who wears a suit half of the time. People like me are guilty of looking fat and smug, but not much else. However I do take your point about profiling for future crime.

It depends, though, what the purpose of the profiling is. If it is used to identify places where the likely criminals hang out in order to put up a couple of CCTVs then I have no issue with that. If it's to arrest and deport them before they can offend then I am against it.

TBH I don't trust our government any further than I could spit the Houses of Parliament, so I don't really think they, and by extension, the police, can be trusted with any information that could be used against people. I'm seriously thinking of becoming an anarchist (voting Lib Dem).

[IBM]

seems like the above, you don't mind being profiled for a FUTURE crime based on what you look like or where you lived, how you are educated, etc.

cool, assume a guy is guilty and ask him to prove his innocence...

the following is equally valid then:

just like if you drive a sports car, you should prove to the police that you won't speed
or if you go and watch a football match in italy, you should prove to the italian police that you are not a hooligan
or if you live in manchester, you should prove to the police when you enter surrey that you won't steal
or if you studied a economics degree in university, you should prove to the police that you wont perpretrate fraud
or if you go to a pub, you should prove to the police you aren't drunk

My god you talk a lot of crap.

So perhaps your advising that when a crime is commited we look at any group MOST likely to commit a crime LAST? Just in case we, you know, cause offence?

Did I say anything about guilty until proven innocent? No. You're not assuming they're guilty, you're assuming they're potentially guilty. Big difference. Following your argument through, we shouldn't even be looking at humans for potential crimes, as we're all potentially guilty for something....no, that's profiling, my god, the horror. Let's blame the sheep instead.

And as for the rest of your 'equally valid' points, they're sufficiently daft for me to just ignore them.

[chicken]

You know it would be nice if maybe these kids would say to their mates "Hey, stop being an idiot carrying that gun, because of people like you we've got a bad name and have to put up with more police searches".

But then nobody has any responsibility anymore do they, it's all the government's fault if anything bad happens. Turn to big nanny-state to solve your community's problems, then moan when your freedoms are taken away.

[MadduckUK]

60+ school janitors should be profiled for future stealing since they are poor and if they drive, they are more likely to kill someone on the roads...

and what ever cant fit in the big lunchbox they can put in there buddies mobile home

[usxhe190]

My god you talk a lot of crap.

So perhaps your advising that when a crime is commited we look at any group MOST likely to commit a crime LAST? Just in case we, you know, cause offence?

I am for profiling after a crime is commited - because you need to idenify the man.
I am against profiling before a crime is commited based on a generalisation (i.e. you are a young black man).

Did I say anything about guilty until proven innocent? No. You're not assuming they're guilty, you're assuming they're potentially guilty. Big difference. Following your argument through, we shouldn't even be looking at humans for potential crimes, as we're all potentially guilty for something....no, that's profiling, my god, the horror. Let's blame the sheep instead.

ok fine, this is your argument - you are assumed to be POTENTIALLY guilty until proven innocent based on 2/3 generalisation.

i totally disagree with this but if you like to live in that world, fine, as long as you remember you will be profiled one day for a future crime you think would be ridiculous/daft (e.g. if you live in a high crime area, you are assumed to be potentially guilty of crime).

just to emphasis, i am only against profiling BEFORE a crime is committed

[chicken]

I don't really get what you two are arguing about. We're not talking about locking these kids up because they *might* be a part of gun-crime, we're talking about the police upping their checks to see if they are carrying guns.

If you were profiled as being someone who would potentially take up hard-drugs then caught carrying heroin, you deserve to be punished for it! If however you don't have any on you when asked then you go on your way, no harm done bar a minute or two of your time to make your streets safer.

Carrying a gun without a licence is a crime. We're not talking about locking up people who might be carrying, but increasing the checks in the hope to catch more people who are. Anyone who's not carrying a gun need not worry.

[IBM]

you do understand what I'm arguing about. You just argued the same thing. I think it's something to do with how usxhe is attempting to express himself.

[usxhe190]

seems like the reasonableness threshold under PACE is pretty high for some hexus people

[Bazzlad]

seems like making sense in posts is a pretty LOW priority for some hexus people

[TooNice]

The only black people in England I know who aren't treated equally are those who believe they're not "The white man is keeping me down" attitude. The only racist remarks I've heard publically stated in the last 5 years have been from asian and black males toward white males.

Racisms as a whole is dead in this Country (there are still some idiots mind) ESPECIALLY toward black people - newer immigrants are going through the early stages that are difficult - but what do you expect?

I think it depends on definitions. Racism, if define as hatred towards another race is can probably be considered dead. Racism, if defined as belief of superiority over other races is probably dead (-ish; is it racist to think that black guys are superior at running?).

However, I don't think that 'true equality' has been achieved yet. At least not from my observations (which I'll admit can be flawed). To some extent, it is understandable: Everything else being equal, would you favour your brother, or the guy down the street. Similarly, everything being equal, would you favour your fellow countrymen, or that Nigerian guy? The equal thing to do would be to flip a coin. But I doubt that is what is being done. Of course, the chances of 'all else being equal' is unlikely e.g. a foreign national often speaks with an accent. That can count against foreign nationals applying for the same job, even though their English may be more than adequate for the job in question. So to be get the job, foreign nationals may need to show more skills.

Where I disagree with Alex, is that humanity will never be able to get over what I am going to call 'racial bias'. Globalisation as we see today is decades old. Or maybe a century but no more than two. Sure, mankind has been exploring and migrating for much longer than that, but not on the scale that transportation today has allowed. Our generation might still be divisive, but how about in another 10, 20 or 30 generations? Even though perfect equality has, in my eye, not been achieved yet (but it has gone a long way - for one, direct form of hatred' towards a certain race is looked down upon), I don't think we can judge the success of this attempt in 3 or so generations.

[Lucio]

I tend to agree that we aren't really racist any more, what we most definately are is culturalists. A lot of us are so self-assured that we hold the correct beliefs we direct hatred towards those that hold differing beliefs, just look at the faith school thread to see what I mean!

The idea is that it's not a "black" person's skin colour that makes them more likely to commit guncrime. It's that the culture they've adopted in certain parts of London makes them more likely to want to carry guns or knives and thus the police need the ability to target a recognised problem demographic.

Also, if you watch a lot of the "reality" police shows or if you have a copper as a mate, you'll realise that a lot of the Police's job is simply talking to people to prevent trouble. The reality of the situation is that to actually get searched often means that when the police officer comes up to you, you've done something to arrouse suspicion. I don't know anyone who'se been searched if they've simply taken 5-10 minutes to stop and have a quick chat and have been polite about it.