Madness? This is London!

[excalibur2]

I tend to agree that we aren't really racist any more, .

HUH I thought racism means thinking you are superior to someone....................well I reckon I'm superior to another human like paedophile murderers or a tramps in the gutter high on drugs....are you their equal?
The fact is, it is human nature to be racist sometimes hidden under the word "pejudice".

[ikonia]

If you've done nothing wrong, or got nothing to hide - what is the problem of being stopped.

Look at the recent investigation into the shooting of Charles "de-Meniz" (excuse spelling of name).

He was under suspicion - wrongly, he was asked to stop and ran because he was an illegal resident and had some other minor crime outstanding, he was shot and killed rightly or wrongly.

Put your selves in the police situation

1.) you have a suspect for a serious crime like the potential to blow up the whole tube, you ask him to stop - with a back pack on, and he runs.

do you

a.) Risk him going into the station and blowing himself up and carrying then for that and living with the fact that you could have stopped him
b.) leg shot and risk him still being able to detonate and carry the same consiquences
c.) head shot and make sure the threat is neatrualised.

Can you imagine the out cry if he had blown the tube and the police used harsh language to stop him ?

I'm not saying the cops are right or wrong, but they are the law - fact

If a copper asks you to stop, search you, your details, you give them - you've got nothing to hide, it will take 30 seconds and you'll be on your way,

Anyone white/black/green or blue who refuses to abide by the authority rightly or wrongly in place in this country is either

a.) someone trying to make a political statment
b.) an idiot
c.) has something to hide


if 10 black kids are searched, what is the problem ? unless.....they fear getting caught for something.

[ikonia]

I'd like to add to this that if there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a group consisting of X demographic in X location is the known highest offenders the police should target them if nothing else to let them know that they are on to them and not afraid to show it.

If black kids in Brixton for example are a known high percentage trouble maker, then random stops searches etc etc should be allowed without question, anyone who refuses - nick them, £10 says they are refusing as there is something to hide.

The police have a hard time these days as the worst they can do without having to radio the queen for permission to do anything is give some one a telling off, we live in a more dangerous time when parents/schools/etc are unable to enforce disapline or rules, or install values for fear of being sued and losing their jobs, where the role models being rewarded on TV are either reality TV morons, coloured ganstras talking "like being da bad guz iz da way t' B, and "hanging in ma yard with da 'homes is wat life is all ubout" or upper class white males who can do what ever they want in the public eye, take drugs, speed, rape and basiclly buy their way out of anything.

The police have a hard time - get behind them.

The police have let me down before, and I've been mad at them before, but that doesn't change the fact they are the law enforcment for our country and should be respected and abided by, or accept to suffer the consiquences.

[chuckskull]

Ikonia makes a good point, just a couple of weeks ago the papers were all up in arms about street violence and gun crime, when the police try to do something about it suddenly their the bad guys.

[JPreston]

...He was under suspicion - wrongly, he was asked to stop and ran because he was an illegal resident and had some other minor crime outstanding, he was shot and killed rightly or wrongly.

Put your selves in the police situation

1.) you have a suspect for a serious crime like the potential to blow up the whole tube, you ask him to stop - with a back pack on, and he runs.

do you

a.) Risk him going into the station and blowing himself up and carrying then for that and living with the fact that you could have stopped him
b.) leg shot and risk him still being able to detonate and carry the same consiquences
c.) head shot and make sure the threat is neatrualised.

Aha, a trick question. The correct answer is "d) Allow him all the way onto the train without taking action, then shoot him dead."

I completely fail to see the relevance of De Menezes to stop and search/racial profiling:

He was Brazilian - Brazil is not known for it's islamic fundamentalists.

He was being followed because he lived in the same building as the actual (failed) bombers, and the police received a tip-off that's where the bombers where (yet apparently I'm still the only person who sees any value in encouraging community involvement in policing).

He wasn't actually a bomber, but if he had been, he was allowed plenty of time to blow himself up on the way to the station, in the station, and on the train carriage.

Unless there is some kind of reverse argument being made - De Menezes was not a bomber and De Menezes was Brazilian, therefore all non-Brazilians are going to be bombers - I really cannot see what point was intended. And for the record I agree 100% that he needed shooting - he really choose the wrong morning not to stop for the police, and at the end of the day was just unlucky to live in that exact building.

How is stop and search related to anti-terrorism anyway? Is our best hope of preventing suicide bombings to expect the police to search all bearded brown men with rucksacks every day, or is there more to it? Ditto why suggest that stop and search has any effect on deterring white collar crime, or pickpocketing (what are the police searching for, possession of opposable thumbs)?

Finally the suggestion that there is no longer racism in the UK would have been laughable if some of you had not apparently taken it seriously. Are there no racial differences in (un)employment then? Are black males not massively over-represented in this DNA database we suddenly have? It's 50% or something, on this register, compared to 6% of whites. That doesn't concern anyone at all?

EDIT:

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

I've never considered myself a thief, but GM won't miss this one little piece...

[usxhe190]

after reading the BBC article again, i like this statement:

"Mr Jarrett will use a speech at the NBPA's annual conference this week to ask Police Minister Tony McNulty and Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair to consider searching more young people.

The suggestion contradicts the approach taken by the NBPA to date which has questioned the high proportion of black people stopped and searched by police."

These statements seem to show the irony of people. "Profiling (for future crime) is fine as long as I don't get profiled."

profiling black people = no way by middle age black person
profiling young (black/white/rainbow) people = yes by middle age black person

[Bazzlad]

Come on JPrescott, even for you this is lame -

Are black males not massively over-represented in this DNA database we suddenly have? It's 50% or something, on this register, compared to 6% of whites. That doesn't concern anyone at all?

Do you know HOW you get into the DNA database? For at least 90% of the people in there it's committing a crime.

Don't get me wrong - I know this is an immensely small selection and can't be used properly in an argument blah blah but it has a point:

Test Results ,,, 100 wallets deliberately lost to test honesty

You get on the register (the majority of the time) for committing a crime.
If it has a lot of one particular race on it there's a reason.

And no, our Country (on the whole isn't racist) and a hell of a lot of it is from the ethnic minorities in the country.

The British Crime Survey reveals that in 2004, 87,000 people from black or minority ethnic communities said they had been a victim of a racially motivated crime. They had suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded. At the same time 92,000 white people said they had also fallen victim of a racially motivated crime. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000. Most of the offenders (57%) in the racially motivated crimes identified in the British Crime Survey are not white. White victims said 82% of offenders were not white

To be fair, you can't say it isn't dealt well with in this Country.
The investigations are quick and thorough - and the punishments if used correctly are duly harsh, our reports are excellent according to the EUMC.

As stated, in general, I know no racists. Am I alone in this?

[Alex Berry]

Racism is an aggression towards another race because of the belief in the superiority of your own.
So it's a learned response.
Learned either directly, as in the indoctrination of the Hitler youth.
Or most likely indirectly, such as building an Empire, victory in battle, or travelling to Africa and the Americas centuries ago and equating the 'primitive' civillizations there with less intellegent beings.

Racism as defined has naturally faded away.
So why is there still aggression and preferential treatment of some over others?
And why has this aggression, etc, not also faded with time, but rather ebbed and flowed in it's intensity?
It's because we all naturally tend toward our own, (even by a simple visual skin colour indicator) and the relative strength toward 'race' and aggression against others is seen to be defined by circumstance.
Put simply, if this country's economy fails we will not unite, we will segregate even more.
Making multi-culture UNSTABLE.

Quote:
"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."

I believe, as mentioned above, that we all tend towards our own 'people'.
I believe that if the white continent had been black and the black white then history would still have recorded slavery.
As indeed it already stands as a condemnation to all races on the subject at some period or other.

Because I believe we are all the same, I therefore believe any complaint against whites made by non-whites, whether right or wrong, minor or far-reaching, is a complaint as easily reversed as a coin.
Whites are not superior to anyone.
That belief is racist.
We are, however in a superior POSITION.
A position held in Europe.
The only lands on earth that we can call home.
And giving that up does not make sense to me.
Especially since a new group based on a shared religion, ethnicity, and identity will simply emerge to take power.
NOT a beautiful new 'rainbow' coalition.

Black power is for Africa.
Our duty is to improve life for them THERE.
And yes, my reasons for saying this are as self-serving as charitable.
A belief that prosperity there means the survival of my identity and prosperity here makes me the best friend that they could have.

A new E.U. proposal wants millions of the most essential non-Europeans to come to Europe on a 'blue chip' policy.
I would rather that they kept their doctors and nurses, architects and I.T. specialists.
And we concentrate on making that one in five children who leave primary school unable to read well enough to go any further in education OUR future doctors, nurses, architects and I.T. specialists.

[JPreston]

Come on JPrescott, even for you this is lame -



Do you know HOW you get into the DNA database? For at least 90% of the people in there it's committing a crime

Wrong again. FFS, do you even try to be factually correct?

You are put on the register if you are arrested on suspicion of a recordable offence, or make a witness statement. Most people on it will not have gone on to be charged, let alone prosecuted of any offence at all. It's a reflection of arrest patterns, not criminality.

Following your logic, or should I say 'logic', or should I say 'baseless raving', you are stating that 90% of 50% of black males in this country are convicted criminals. You appear to be perfectly comfortable with this, as you don't feel the need for even the most rudimentary fact checking. Are you sure you don't know any racists?

[redlight]

Look on the bright side people.
How long before reverse engineering and a bit of hacking
will be able to inject a bit of code into the database and screw the whole thing up.
Not long I suspect.

[BEANFro Elite]

Racism isn't really a defineable thing, its more a state of being, a doctrine or more to the point a multitude of things.

In the UK, the terms "racism", "racist", and "discrimination" especially in recent times have been grossly and carelessly overused and has consequently become a devalued word; most people are very quick to accuse someone of being racist without fully understanding what it is for someone to be racist.

For example, racism would be for someone being blue to be refused entry to a pub that is predominantly full of green people, he is refused for no other reason other than the fact that he has blue skin and the green people just don't like blue people, because they're blue.

An example of discrimination would be, the blue person is refused entry to the pub as recently, there has been a lot of trouble involving blue, green AND purple people in and around the pub.

So the landlord who happens to be a green guy, instructs the doormen to refuse entry to ALL blue and purple people until the trouble has settled down a bit.

I've just highlighted two things that are often misconstrued in our society; discrimination and racism.

They are VERY similar but are still very different at the same time, we're all guilty of discrimination its just a matter of being able to perhaps understand or even accept how or why people feel the way they do about other races, for many its a lack of knowledge for others its just a doctrine thats been drummed into them.

I'm aware that the above example is a very weak and simplistic example but I just wanted to clarify the difference between racism and discrimination, you can't join or lump them together otherwise you start to undermine the very meaning of the words and then you set about a segregation of society.

Its worth pointing out for that matter that, my missus is white, her grandparents were initially VERY iffy with me as from what they hear in the media about black people they've learnt through me that, its not always the case.


The Police are NOT being racist for wanting to increase the stop and search rate on a given race or social group if they're statistically more likely to commit a certain crime, its merely discrimination and its not the same for places or the type of crime.

I think what we should be discussing is how effective the stop and search REALLY is and if it alienates, then what should the Police be doing to ease the feeling of alienation.

I've noticed that it is a lack of knowledge that WILL most efficiently alienate a given social group.


P.S. For the record, race aside, NO ONE is equal, think about it

[ikonia]

I completely fail to see the relevance of De Menezes to stop and search/racial profiling:

The point I was going for was that

a.) The police where reating to him due to their inteligence - in the same way they are reacting to their profiling, things like the backpack and his failure to stop, his location made him a suspect. Its not to do with race, but police have to go on what they believe is correct at the time
b.) I'm also using it to point out what a hard act to please the police have in us the public, if he had been a bomber - we'd be screaming why didn't they stop him, now we are screaming why did they shoot him and we have these cops up on a hearing.
The same thing apply - you stop a black youth, because your intel suggests that in that area you are looking for a 5.10 black youth in a long jacket....there are many he fails to stop to give details ? why ? is it because he doesn't want to - or does he have something to hide, if that youth isn't a problem youth he has nothing to worry about, if that officer didn't search him for fear of a hearing and he goes and stabs someone - they out cry is "you know that the majority of black youths in the area carry knives and are in gangs why didn't you act"


The cops are damned from both sides and face this sort of utter crap when trying to actually get to the bottom and start resolving crimes.

[TooNice]

HUH I thought racism means thinking you are superior to someone.................... well I reckon I'm superior to another human like paedophile murderers or a tramps in the gutter high on drugs....are you their equal?

Going by dictionary.com:

"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

"Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

"Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

I only took some of the less wordy definitions, but the keyword I want to highlight is the word 'race'. Superiority over paedophile etc. would probably be some other kind of "-ist". Unless you happen to think that paedophiles are a race of their own.

However, the reason why I started by previous post by saying that it depends on the definition is because, for most part, I am inclined to believe that the hatred and intolerance towards another race is something not generally tolerated these days in this country. I tend to think that the belief of superiority is not there either (or at least not obvious). However, as implied by my last post, I do believe that there is some level of prejudice still, and there is still a way to go before true racial equality.

[excalibur2]

Going by dictionary.com:

"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

"Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

"Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

I only took some of the less wordy definitions, but the keyword I want to highlight is the word 'race'. Superiority over paedophile etc. would probably be some other kind of "-ist". Unless you happen to think that paedophiles are a race of their own.

However, the reason why I started by previous post by saying that it depends on the definition is because, for most part, I am inclined to believe that the hatred and intolerance towards another race is something not generally tolerated these days in this country. I tend to think that the belief of superiority is not there either (or at least not obvious). However, as implied by my last post, I do believe that there is some level of prejudice still, and there is still a way to go before true racial equality.

Well my point is:- If there is a tiny bit of feeling superior, then where does it end? Racism is just another form.

If you don't think you are superior to other humans like for example.......the Nazi SS or Moslem suicide bombers, Africans Hutus in Rwanda then you must be equal to them.
If you think you are superior then you're in the pot as a possible rascist plus any other similar topic you could be accused of.

My view is sensible in that 99.9% humans feel superior in one way or another (well you would be a loser if you felt inferior) and racism is just one form.

[Bazzlad]

Wrong again. FFS, do you even try to be factually correct?

You are put on the register if you are arrested on suspicion of a recordable offence, or make a witness statement. Most people on it will not have gone on to be charged, let alone prosecuted of any offence at all. It's a reflection of arrest patterns, not criminality.

Following your logic, or should I say 'logic', or should I say 'baseless raving', you are stating that 90% of 50% of black males in this country are convicted criminals. You appear to be perfectly comfortable with this, as you don't feel the need for even the most rudimentary fact checking. Are you sure you don't know any racists?

Oh my God.
A reflection of arrest patterns.

Trust me, the police don't pick up random black males, take them to the station, take their DNA and fill in the stream of paper work on a whim, like you're implying. People get arrested for a reason. Occasionally, that reason is wrong and they are released - I myself was arrested for "assault with a deadly weapon" I was alledged to have hit someone with a bottle. I hadn't - this was confirmed by independant witnesses, my DNA was taken, I was released without charge.

However. I had confronted the person in question, and threatened him. There were witnesses who saw that - there was also a broken bottle at the scene.

My DNA was wrongly taken - but for the right reasons. This is how it works. If there is a high percentage of black males on the database, there is a high percentage of black males being arrested for crimes or suspicion of crime(s).

As for the witness statement I've given a fair few statements and had my DNA taken a total of 0 times. Of top of that, 90% of the time the statement was given at my home, and the 10% I went to the station, there was, once again, no DNA taken. And do you really believe that has any relevance to why a high percentage of black males are on the register?

I've love it - why do you think these people were arrested? Because they're black males? Or because the Police love paperwork.

I love you Jprescott, I really do. You make me laugh on a daily basis....

[nichomach]

If you've done nothing wrong, or got nothing to hide - what is the problem of being stopped.

Look at the recent investigation into the shooting of Charles "de-Meniz" (excuse spelling of name).

He was under suspicion - wrongly, he was asked to stop and ran because he was an illegal resident and had some other minor crime outstanding, he was shot and killed rightly or wrongly.
..

OK, can we please make this the last time that someone trots out this bull****? de Menezes was NOT asked to stop at any point, and he didn't run. Like most of the rest of the initial police statement concerning the shooting, this was a lie. He wasn't wearing a bulky coat. He didn't have wires sticking out of his pocket. He didn't jump a barrier, he used his Oyster card. The police "intelligence" was that de Menezes exited a block of flats, one of which was occupied by someone suspected of terrorist involvement. That's it. He was not in the country illegally, and he hadn't committed any crime. The sum and extent of his "suspicious" behaviour was that he got off the bus at one tube station, saw that it was closed and hopped back on the bus to go to an alternate station. He was pursued onto the train where he was held down and shot repeatedly.

The police cocked up. Royally. If they're getting "crap" now, it's because they shot an innocent man without cause, and then lied like troopers to try to cover it up. It's entirely possible that they're STILL attempting to mislead people. I'd say that it's entirely deserved crap.