and here come the sus laws
- Thread starter smokedout
- Start date
southside
Banned
No shit.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Fucks sake!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'ethnic origin'?
'ethnic identity'?
Cunts could at least have the guts to say what they really mean: 'skin colour'.
'ethnic identity'?
Cunts could at least have the guts to say what they really mean: 'skin colour'.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Welcome to 1979.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Welcome to 80/81. Whose going up first this time?
So if they got wind of some David Copeland style threat, you think it would be fair to stop and search black women?
The guideline would also mean police no longer have to record when a person is stopped by an officer and asked to account for their presence or actions.
that's the bit I'm more worried about, at least there's a paper trail atm when someone is stopped for possession of thick lips and curly black hair
that's the bit I'm more worried about, at least there's a paper trail atm when someone is stopped for possession of thick lips and curly black hair
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
1. 'reports of a man fleeing the scene of a brutal attack, black, in his 30s, etc; police stop people in the area who meet the description
2. 'reports of a possible conspiracy to commit some kind of attack somewhere, brown people involved; people with brown skin stopped in the street for having brown skin
1. is entirely reasonable. 2. is not.
@ ern. Although you're just shit-stirring as usual.
2. 'reports of a possible conspiracy to commit some kind of attack somewhere, brown people involved; people with brown skin stopped in the street for having brown skin
1. is entirely reasonable. 2. is not.
@ ern. Although you're just shit-stirring as usual.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
they're tories ern
This debate is nowhere near as simple as it is made out to be. The underlying point, that someone should not be discriminated against in the application of police powers is undeniable. Likewise it is absolutely without question that actions should not be based on stereotyping (based on ethnicity or any other factor.
But where some action is taken based on description, then it makes absolute sense for the ethnic appearance of the suspect to be part of the decision making process in relation to whether or not to stop and question someone. In fact it would be quite wrong to stop and question someone who didn't fit that ethnic appearance. For instance, if a person were robbed in the street and gave a description of a suspect of, say, Chinese ethnic appearance, it would be the right thing to do to only stop and question people of Chinese ethnic appearance on the basis that they may have been the robber. It would be quite wrong to stop and question people of other ethnic appearances on that basis. (This is NOT saying that just because someone was of Chinese ethnic appearance their being stopped and questioned could be justified, there would have to be some other basis too (time, place, rest of description, possession of property, actions or whatever) but, overall, it should be no surprise to see that 100% of the suspects stopeed about this particular incident were of Chinese ethnic appearance.
So far as I can see, this report is talking about the bigger picture, where non-specific or unknown suspects are to be targetted to prevent some crime or other. Again it is without doubt the case that anyone, of any ethnic appearance can be associated with any criminal activity or cause ... but the reality of the situation is that there are often very significant associations between particular ethnicities and particular criminal activities or causes (especially the latter). That statistical correlation may in some cases be so striking as to merit ethnic appearance being used as a factor in deciding on action - hence the fact that someone is of Irish ethnicity may mean that it is more likely that they are associated with the Continuity IRA than, say, a black woman or an Asian youth. Sometimes, of course, it is not just the statistics which are the basis for the association between ethnicity and support for a cause - intelligence, surveillance, etc. may have provided hard evidence for the apparent ethnicity of members and supporters of causes.
When mounting operations aimed specifically at a particular criminal activity or cause it must therefore be common sense to include consideration of any such association with ethnicity. Just as in the single incident case, if 99.99% of a particular terrorist organisation are of a particular ethnic appearance it would be both fuckwitted and wrong for the vast majority of people stopped and questioned about it to be anything but of that ethnic appearance. As I said, it needs to be remembered that people of any ethnic appearance may be associated with it, and it certainly needs to be remembered that ethnic appearance alone cannot and should not be the basis for any action ... but when the stats come out it should not be a surprise to find that 99.99% of people stopped in relation to the activities of that terrorist organisation are of a particular ethnic appearance.
I believe that thinking otherwise has arisen from a failure to recognise that discrimination can be perfectly lawful and proper as well as being unlawful and wrong. We treat people differently on the basis of all sorts of characteristrics for all sorts of perfectly justifiable reasons all the time. But when it comes to policing and ethnicity we seem to get into an almighty muddle and political correctness is allowed to take over from common sense. This leads to the utterly ridiculous (and, I would suggest, entirely unlawful and wrong) situation in which officers deployed on anti-Al Quaeda style terrorism operations stopped and searched middle-aged white, black and Chinese people simply to try and make sure that the statistics reflected proportionality in the community. That (a) inconvenienced people who were highly unlikely to be involved in the relevant terrorist activity; (b) wasted officers time dealing with people who everyone knew were highly unlikely to be involved when they could have been focusing on the statistically more likely groups and (c) was an affront to common sense.
They have also mentioned the issue of recording "stop and account" interactions. This is where the police are required to record the details of someone who they ask about their movements but who they do not search or arrest. This was purely so that checks could be kept on whether there was disproportionality but it meant that thousands of people were asked for their details even though no-one suspected them of doing anything wrong and the police did not otherwise want them. Personally I think this was a disproportionate invasion of people's privacy and should never have been done in the first place - if a police officer sees someone coming out from an alleyway at the back of some shops at 3am carrying a bag they are perfectly entitled to go and have a word with them (they would be failing in their duty if they did not). If when they do they immediately establish that it is the resident of one of the flats above the shops, who happens to work as a flight attendant and who is about to head off for Gatwick for the first flight out then there is no justification whatsoever for asking for and recording the person's details and prolonging the inconvenience. Removing the requirement will not make any difference at all to whether there is disproportionality in stop and account, it will just remove a disporportionately bureaucratic and invasive means of checking whether there is any.
It will be interesting to see how this latest attempt to bring common sense back into the debate about policing and ethnicity fares. Sadly I suspect that sufficient noise will be made for those attempting it to back down, leaving policing in a La-La Land of it's own with regard to ethnicity issues for another few years ...
But where some action is taken based on description, then it makes absolute sense for the ethnic appearance of the suspect to be part of the decision making process in relation to whether or not to stop and question someone. In fact it would be quite wrong to stop and question someone who didn't fit that ethnic appearance. For instance, if a person were robbed in the street and gave a description of a suspect of, say, Chinese ethnic appearance, it would be the right thing to do to only stop and question people of Chinese ethnic appearance on the basis that they may have been the robber. It would be quite wrong to stop and question people of other ethnic appearances on that basis. (This is NOT saying that just because someone was of Chinese ethnic appearance their being stopped and questioned could be justified, there would have to be some other basis too (time, place, rest of description, possession of property, actions or whatever) but, overall, it should be no surprise to see that 100% of the suspects stopeed about this particular incident were of Chinese ethnic appearance.
So far as I can see, this report is talking about the bigger picture, where non-specific or unknown suspects are to be targetted to prevent some crime or other. Again it is without doubt the case that anyone, of any ethnic appearance can be associated with any criminal activity or cause ... but the reality of the situation is that there are often very significant associations between particular ethnicities and particular criminal activities or causes (especially the latter). That statistical correlation may in some cases be so striking as to merit ethnic appearance being used as a factor in deciding on action - hence the fact that someone is of Irish ethnicity may mean that it is more likely that they are associated with the Continuity IRA than, say, a black woman or an Asian youth. Sometimes, of course, it is not just the statistics which are the basis for the association between ethnicity and support for a cause - intelligence, surveillance, etc. may have provided hard evidence for the apparent ethnicity of members and supporters of causes.
When mounting operations aimed specifically at a particular criminal activity or cause it must therefore be common sense to include consideration of any such association with ethnicity. Just as in the single incident case, if 99.99% of a particular terrorist organisation are of a particular ethnic appearance it would be both fuckwitted and wrong for the vast majority of people stopped and questioned about it to be anything but of that ethnic appearance. As I said, it needs to be remembered that people of any ethnic appearance may be associated with it, and it certainly needs to be remembered that ethnic appearance alone cannot and should not be the basis for any action ... but when the stats come out it should not be a surprise to find that 99.99% of people stopped in relation to the activities of that terrorist organisation are of a particular ethnic appearance.
I believe that thinking otherwise has arisen from a failure to recognise that discrimination can be perfectly lawful and proper as well as being unlawful and wrong. We treat people differently on the basis of all sorts of characteristrics for all sorts of perfectly justifiable reasons all the time. But when it comes to policing and ethnicity we seem to get into an almighty muddle and political correctness is allowed to take over from common sense. This leads to the utterly ridiculous (and, I would suggest, entirely unlawful and wrong) situation in which officers deployed on anti-Al Quaeda style terrorism operations stopped and searched middle-aged white, black and Chinese people simply to try and make sure that the statistics reflected proportionality in the community. That (a) inconvenienced people who were highly unlikely to be involved in the relevant terrorist activity; (b) wasted officers time dealing with people who everyone knew were highly unlikely to be involved when they could have been focusing on the statistically more likely groups and (c) was an affront to common sense.
They have also mentioned the issue of recording "stop and account" interactions. This is where the police are required to record the details of someone who they ask about their movements but who they do not search or arrest. This was purely so that checks could be kept on whether there was disproportionality but it meant that thousands of people were asked for their details even though no-one suspected them of doing anything wrong and the police did not otherwise want them. Personally I think this was a disproportionate invasion of people's privacy and should never have been done in the first place - if a police officer sees someone coming out from an alleyway at the back of some shops at 3am carrying a bag they are perfectly entitled to go and have a word with them (they would be failing in their duty if they did not). If when they do they immediately establish that it is the resident of one of the flats above the shops, who happens to work as a flight attendant and who is about to head off for Gatwick for the first flight out then there is no justification whatsoever for asking for and recording the person's details and prolonging the inconvenience. Removing the requirement will not make any difference at all to whether there is disproportionality in stop and account, it will just remove a disporportionately bureaucratic and invasive means of checking whether there is any.
It will be interesting to see how this latest attempt to bring common sense back into the debate about policing and ethnicity fares. Sadly I suspect that sufficient noise will be made for those attempting it to back down, leaving policing in a La-La Land of it's own with regard to ethnicity issues for another few years ...
Ethnicity is lots more than skin colour. If you think that that is all there is to it you are treating it in a very simplistic manner.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
I'm sure littlebabyjesus knows that... but do the police?
What is your view on the fact that establishing this paper trail involves (a) asking and recording details of the person which would otherwise not be taken (something that lots of people would rather did not happen) and (b) asking and recording details of a persons self-defined ethnicity which almost invariably results in them asking "Why do you need to know that?" (and NOT believing the explanation that it is simply to create a paper trail ...)? Do you not consider this a disproportionate, invasive and wasteful bureaucratic exercise?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Nope, you are dead wrong, db. If you have no reason to suspect someone except the colour of their skin, the answer is simple: you do not stop and question anyone. Even if, for the sake of argument, virtually all Islamic terrorists have brown skin, that still means that the vast majority of people with brown skin walking the streets are not Islamic terrorists. To be treated as a suspect purely on the basis of your appearance is wrong. It is an affront to civil liberties.
Fuck me who the hell reads long posts like that?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Can you tell the difference between a person of Indian or Pakistani origin just by looking at them? Ethnicity may be more than skin colour, but when looking for people to stop in the streets, what else are the police going to use other than physical characteristics?
Obviously not if it is JUST because they have brown skin ... but what about the issue of them having (or not having) brown skin being permitted as part of the grounds (at the moment ethnicity is specifically excluded as being any part of the grounds for stop and search) or about the statistics, when collated, showing that the vast majority of people stopped, based on other reasons as well, having brown skin?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Young black men are something like six times more likely than young white men to be stopped and searched for knives in parts of London. No doubt you may be able to give me the precise figure. All things being equal, you would expect six times more young black men to be arrested for carrying a knife than young white men. The fact that so many more black men are caught with knives is then used as justification for stopping more black men than white... Do you see the circularity of the process, how it perpetuates racism?
That is NOT what I am saying. I specifically said "and it certainly needs to be remembered that ethnic appearance alone cannot and should not be the basis for any action".
I would be interested to hear your response to what I am ACTUALLY saying.
People who realise that issues are complex and cannot be dealt with in glib one-liners ...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'ethnic appearance' is never a justification in whole or in part for random stop and search. It has the effect of making the colour of your skin part of what turns you into a suspect. There's never a justification for random stop and search full stop, mind you. The police have no business harassing anyone unless they have grounds to suspect that particular individual of a particular crime.
Sometimes, often not. Certainly not by skin colour.
Physical characteristics (of which skin colour is just one) are obviously the only aspect which is applicable in an observation sense. And it is obviously not possible to differentiate on anything but a gross level (hence the police's six categories of ethnic appearance compared to the "sixteen plus one" categories for self-defined ethnicity). But sometimes that is adequate in relation to a particular criminal activity or cause.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
'cause'?
I would not argue that there is any particular general link between ethnicity and the carrying of knives. There ARE (from statistics established from descriptions and victims, NOT from statistics of who is caught carrying a knife) sometimes local and short-term connections between serious violence involving knives and particular groups, sometimes (as in recently in central London) associated with a particular people of a particular ethnic appearance. If black kids are being stabbed to death by other black kids in a grossly disproprtionate number, would it not be fuckwitted to focus efforts to stop that anywhere but on black kids?
There are also some major issues with the disproportionality statistics, again which are generally ignored because of polictical correctness. Some of the major ones are: (a) the baseline (i.e. what proportionality should look like) is based on a Census which is now ten years old; (b) the Census data takes no account of other demographics (such as age) which have a major impact on the groups likely to be involved in crime and disorder (as suspects or victims) and (c) the correct baseline data for proportionality in relation to stop and search and any other street policing activity is the street population in the relevant area.
(c) is by far the most important. Research in Brixton years ago (by Marion Fitzgerald, then a Home Office researcher, still a criminologist in some university in Kent) suggested that street populations were so different from the Census data that there was actually disproportionate stop and search of white youths on the streets there. Amateur research in my own local area (Richmond upon Thames) has demonstrated massive variations in street population from Census data in particular areas at particular times, largely due to large numbers of people from other areas who come to the Borough to study and socialise. Viewed against street population data a picture is starting to emerge of the "disproprtionality" that has long been recorded being a chimera ...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yep cause.
What's the numbers again IC 3/4
Alpha one
What's the numbers again IC 3/4
Alpha one
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
Yep, this.
Similar threads
