and here come the sus laws

[detective-boy]

'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.

You keep stating the same thing, something which no-one is arguing for, least of all me. Could you please try and engage with the other points being made.

Let's try a (somewhat ridiculous) hypothetical example. There has been a recent rise in international terrorism associated with Chinese criminal gangs. Observation of those involved, membership of the groups supporting those involved and their cause and such intelligence as is available all suggests that 95% of those involved are of ethnic Chinese appearance. Their activities have been quite specific in that they have despatched cells to countries all over the West with identical plans to make and use particular suicide bombs which are designed to fit in laptop cases. They have been supplied with laptop cases of a particular make which is also widely available to the general public. They have been sent to target transport infrastructure - buses, trains, underground, ferries, etc. ALL the attacks so far have involved these features and so a preventative campaign of police activity has been mounted. Officers have been told to look for people acting in any sort of suspicious manner in and around transport infrastructure, especially in possession of the particular type of laptop bag, with a particular emphasis on those of ethnic Chinese appearance. They have been instructed NOT to stop anyone JUST because they are of ethnic Chinese appearance - there MUST be something else as well. When the statistics are released after a few months it shows that around 90% of the people stopped were of Chinese ethnic appearance. In EVERY case there were other grounds too. This is grossly disporportionate against the Census baseline data (and the street population data!!) which shows ethnic Chinese appearance to be a small minority of the overall population.

What is your analysis of that?

 

[detective-boy]

'cause'?

Causes of the type whihc lay behind terrorist, and sometimes other, criminal activity.

 

[butchersapron]

Look, we all get that you have to target the pakis, but the blacks are on our side now. Why bring them into it?

 

[detective-boy]

Yep, this.

I have no idea what "Alpha one" is.

The six basic ethnic appearance codes used by the UK police are:

1: White
2: White - mediterranean (i.e. dark complexion)
3: Black (African or Caribbean)
4: (South) Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.)
5: South-east Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, etc.)
6: Arabic

 

[detective-boy]

Why bring them into it?

Racially offensive post reported.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That list in itself is instructive. An Indonesian looks very different from a Chinese person. Yet they are lumped together. A Somali looks very different from a Nigerian. Yet they are lumped together. A Sri Lankan looks very different from a Bangladeshi. Yet they are lumped together.

And if someone has, say, one white parent and one black parent, which group do they belong to? Why black, of course...

 

[butchersapron]

...and why is white at the top? Both whites!

 

[ernestolynch]

Cos whites build rocket ships and light sabres and stuff.

 

[ernestolynch]

Celts shouldn't be lumped in with Saxons.

 

[Wilson]

what about Eskimos?

 

[detective-boy]

That list in itself is instructive. An Indonesian looks very different from a Chinese person. Yet they are lumped together. A Somali looks very different from a Nigerian. Yet they are lumped together. A Sri Lankan looks very different from a Bangladeshi. Yet they are lumped together.

And if someone has, say, one white parent and one black parent, which group do they belong to? Why black, of course...

The idea is that it IS about simple, broad categories. Bearing in mind that lots of it's use is to do with descriptions given by victims and witnesses, often having had a fleeting glimpse of the person they are describing, anything more complex would simply not be workable. Where more specific detail is available it is included in witness statements and circulated descriptions.

There is a whole debate to be had about how the categories are set up - obviously they have been created from a UK-centric perspective, where we have managed to get two categories for white and only one for other far more variable groups (and, arguably, nothing at all for huge ethnic groups (such as those from South America)). I suspect partially that is simply because of numbers - the six categories covered pretty much all numerically significant parts of the UK population when they were created (at least forty years ago) - and partially because we do tend to be able to distinguish more amongst more numerous categories as we are more familiar with more small variations and seeing detail that people from other groups, unfamiliar with variations in our groups, simply would not see.

It would be interesting to know what shorthand is used in a similar way in other countries. I can't recall ever having seen anything like that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Right. Any system of racial categorisation will necessarily be crude and contain anachronisms, but such a system is useful when taking down statements from witnesses or victims. I accept that.

But that falls very firmly into my category 1 from earlier. What can never be acceptable is the racial profiling of particular crimes, be they terrorism or knife crime, and the targeting of particular racial groups as a result where there is no alleged crime at all, simply a campaign of harassment. That is an affront to civil liberties and it is, frankly, a power that I simply would not entrust to the average copper. It is also incredibly short-sighted and counterproductive. If black kids didn't hate coppers to start with, they will after the fifth time they've been stopped and searched for the crime of being young, black and out in public.

 

[revlon]

You keep stating the same thing, something which no-one is arguing for, least of all me. Could you please try and engage with the other points being made.

Let's try a (somewhat ridiculous) hypothetical example. There has been a recent rise in international terrorism associated with Chinese criminal gangs. Observation of those involved, membership of the groups supporting those involved and their cause and such intelligence as is available all suggests that 95% of those involved are of ethnic Chinese appearance. Their activities have been quite specific in that they have despatched cells to countries all over the West with identical plans to make and use particular suicide bombs which are designed to fit in laptop cases. They have been supplied with laptop cases of a particular make which is also widely available to the general public. They have been sent to target transport infrastructure - buses, trains, underground, ferries, etc. ALL the attacks so far have involved these features and so a preventative campaign of police activity has been mounted. Officers have been told to look for people acting in any sort of suspicious manner in and around transport infrastructure, especially in possession of the particular type of laptop bag, with a particular emphasis on those of ethnic Chinese appearance. They have been instructed NOT to stop anyone JUST because they are of ethnic Chinese appearance - there MUST be something else as well. When the statistics are released after a few months it shows that around 90% of the people stopped were of Chinese ethnic appearance. In EVERY case there were other grounds too. This is grossly disporportionate against the Census baseline data (and the street population data!!) which shows ethnic Chinese appearance to be a small minority of the overall population.

What is your analysis of that?

the suspect was proceeding in a westerly direction...

 

[trevhagl]

i think this law will make it easy for the old bill to carry out personal vendettas. remember the Roual Moat TV programme , where it was revealed he was stopped 169 times in a month? They did it because they had a personal grudge against him but you can see racist coppers doing the same to every black face they see

 

[detective-boy]

What can never be acceptable is the racial profiling of particular crimes, be they terrorism or knife crime, and the targeting of particular racial groups as a result where there is no alleged crime at all, simply a campaign of harassment.

If the FACT is that particular crimes are being committed by members of a particular part of the community then it is an affront to common sense not to acknowledge that and, if appropriate, act upon it.

For years this political correctness led to the police failing to properly engage with the black communities of inner London (and other cities) in relation to the fact that black youths WERE engaging in violent crime which was perpetrated by black youths on black youths. This led to the black community criticising the LACK of action by the police and alleging racism on the basis that the police couldn't give a toss because the victims were black and if they had been white youths there would have been no such reticence to confront the issue. Eventually community pressure led to the creation of Operation Trident, something which has continued to attract high levels of support from the black community.

As I have said repeatedly, it is important to remember that not ALL people of whatever group is identified as being primarily involved in any particular type of criminal activity (terrorist or otherwise) and it is important to stress that no action can be justified on a person's membership of that particular group ALONE. But it is an affront to common sense (and an affront to the civil liberties of future victims) not to acknowledge that disproportionate preventative / enforcement action (as compared against some random Census baseline) is inevitable.

How would you suggest the police do go about dealing with such a situation then? If it is known that, say 90% of street robberies in a particular area are committed by suspects of ethnicity A, how could you justify anything other than 90% of preventative / enforcement action in relation to addressing the street robbery problem?

 

[butchersapron]

FACT is worthless, without context.

 

[detective-boy]

i think this law will make it easy for the old bill to carry out personal vendettas. remember the Roual Moat TV programme , where it was revealed he was stopped 169 times in a month? They did it because they had a personal grudge against him but you can see racist coppers doing the same to every black face they see

There is certainly scope for individual officers to pursue personal vendettas or to act in a racist or other discriminatory way - that is why it is important that some of the "bureaucracy" that politicians keep banging on about is kept and why there needs to be constant intrusive supervision of officers activities. But I'm not sure that these changes will alter how often that happens - if they are minded to do that they will do it anyway.

The issue of targetting a particular individual also raises the interesting question of whether someone well known for a long string of criminal offences should be targetted by the local police for extra attention in terms of stop & search, stop & account, etc. than the average citizen. Again common sense surely says that they should doesn't it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How would you suggest the police do go about dealing with such a situation then? If it is known that, say 90% of street robberies in a particular area are committed by suspects of ethnicity A, how could you justify anything other than 90% of preventative / enforcement action in relation to addressing the street robbery problem?

What do you mean by preventative action? If 90% of street robberies are committed by people of 'ethnicity A', presumably 90% of descriptions of suspects will be of ethnicity A. So 90% of those arrested or questioned are likely to be of ethnicity A.

However, you appear to be talking about something else when you speak of preventative action. Here we hit an impasse because I have a different view of the police's legitimate role from you.

I would also take issue with your use of the term 'black community'. There is often no such thing, any more than there is a 'white community'. Still less is there anyone except the self-appointed, and with an agenda to push, to speak for such a group.

For example, in an area where there is still widespread mistrust of the police, if they were to go canvassing views at, say, a public meeting, only those who do not mistrust the police will attend such a meeting. You certainly won't get a representative group. If the police were to go canvassing opinion more widely, they might get a result of, say, 70% of those who responded supported the measure, but that may ignore the fact that 90% of those asked did not respond... You could pretty safely take 'Fuck off, pig' as a 'no' vote.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

T

The issue of targetting a particular individual also raises the interesting question of whether someone well known for a long string of criminal offences should be targetted by the local police for extra attention in terms of stop & search, stop & account, etc. than the average citizen. Again common sense surely says that they should doesn't it?

Not if you do not believe the police should be stopping and searching anybody, no.

 

[stethoscope]

Btw, Observer piece about SUS today:

"Black people are 26 times more likely than whites to face stop and search"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/17/stop-and-search-race-figures

 

[LiamO]

This debate is nowhere near as simple as it is made out to be.

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,(

Jeez you were going so well weren't you? Even though you still managed to suggest that anyone dissenting from your view is 'fuckwitted'.

So tell me... How do you spot a Continuity IRA volunteer by their 'ethnic appearance'? Or do all us Paddies have Red hair, shoes with big buckles, a little green suit and a shillelagh to help you twig our 'ethnic appearance?

I understand that the Irish only got a mention to take the argument away from skin colour, but even then you shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[detective-boy]

However, you appear to be talking about something else when you speak of preventative action. Here we hit an impasse because I have a different view of the police's legitimate role from you.

Preventative action is activity intended to prevent further offending. Stop and search is by far the most commonly used such action but less intrusive versions may be high-visibility patrols or other activity such as road checks. If 90% of street robberies are committed by people of ethnicity "A" then stop and search or any other preventative action would be expected to involve 90% from that ethnicity (in exactly the same way that if 90% of speed-related deaths on rural roads at weekends are motorcyclists you would expect 90% of the activity to deter and detect speeding on rural roads at weekends to be targetted at motorcycles and not HGVs.

Street robbery (which I deliberately mentioned as it is one of the most common crime types that leads to stop and search operations) is a type of crime which is (a) reported in almost every case; (b) includes some sort of basic suspect description in the vast majority of cases and (c) has stop and search, in the immediate aftermath of a robbery, as one of the very, very few possible ways of solving it. In your first paragraph you seem to be accepting that it would be OK for 90% of people stopped and searched on suspicion of being involved in street robbery being of ethnicity "A" but simultaneously in your second paragraph you say that you have a different view of the police's legitimate role. Could you explain exactly what you mean?

I would also take issue with your use of the term 'black community'. There is often no such thing, any more than there is a 'white community'. Still less is there anyone except the self-appointed, and with an agenda to push, to speak for such a group.

Of course there are lots of different, and interrelated, communities. But, broadly speaking, we have to establish consultative arrangements with representative groups as otherwise you'd end up holding a referendum for everything. The trick is to get the consultative arrangements right. Part of the problem is that those who actually have the most important views to contribute consistently fail to engage with any attempt to engage them (for a variety of reasons) and consistently fail to develop or suggest any meaningful means of consultation of their own design / liking.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In your first paragraph you seem to be accepting that it would be OK for 90% of people stopped and searched on suspicion of being involved in street robbery being of ethnicity "A" but simultaneously in your second paragraph you say that you have a different view of the police's legitimate role. Could you explain exactly what you mean?

I've already explained what I mean.

On the one hand, there is a crime that has been committed and its victim/witnesses have given a description of the suspect, which will include skin colour. This description will of course be used by the police in the course of their investigations, and if a victim and three witnesses all say that the assailant was a young black man, they can safely assume that they only need to look for a young black man. If they all also say he was short and fat and had no hair, they would only need to look for a young, short, fat black man with no hair...

On the other hand, you have racial profiling of crimes and the targeting of people of particular appearance as a general action designed to prevent crime from happening. This is clearly different. Or are you saying that only those who match specific descriptions given by witnesses of specific crimes that have already happened are ever stopped and searched?

 

[detective-boy]

Btw, Observer piece about SUS today:

"Black people are 26 times more likely than whites to face stop and search"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/17/stop-and-search-race-figures

In relation to s.60 (which is temporaily used in relation to specific incidents and for very short periods - unlike s.44 Terrorism Act powers it has never been abused by means of being authorised continuously over whole police areas, you would need to look at the nature of the incidents which led to each authorisation and the appropriateness of the searches carried out as a result. If the incident was, say, a house party that had got out of hand and had resulted in disorder where the vast majority of those involved were of ethnicity "A" it would be common sense to say that the vast majority of those searched would be of ethnicity "A".

Comparison of the ratios to the Census figures (with all the issues already connected with doing that in the first place which I have already talked about), which the article appears to do, without reference to the nature of the specific incidents, is pretty meaningless.

Constant articles like this which fail to acknowledge the complexities help no-one.

 

[butchersapron]

Comparison of the ratios to the Census figures (with all the issues already connected with doing that in the first place which I have already talked about), which the article appears to do, without reference to the nature of the specific incidents, is pretty meaningless.

This is how it's sneaked through. It's a liberal worded justification for policing by tautology.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course there are lots of different, and interrelated, communities. But, broadly speaking, we have to establish consultative arrangements with representative groups as otherwise you'd end up holding a referendum for everything. The trick is to get the consultative arrangements right. Part of the problem is that those who actually have the most important views to contribute consistently fail to engage with any attempt to engage them (for a variety of reasons) and consistently fail to develop or suggest any meaningful means of consultation of their own design / liking.

You acknowledge this, yet you earlier asserted that Operation Trident 'continues to attract high levels of support from the black community'. Now setting aside the problem with the term black community (by replacing 'the black community' with simply 'black people', perhaps), how do you know that it has high levels of support. From whom? How were respondents chosen, and how was it ensured that they were in some way representative?

 

[detective-boy]

On the other hand, you have racial profiling of crimes and the targeting of people of particular appearance as a general action designed to prevent crime from happening. This is clearly different. Or are you saying that only those who match specific descriptions given by witnesses of specific crimes that have already happened are ever stopped and searched?

Police officers stop and search people in a variety of contexts:

(a) They see someone acting suspiciously in some way and decide to stop and search them without reference to any extrinsic facts at all.
(b) A specific crime is reported and they see someone relatively soon afterwards, relatively close to the scene, who fits whatever (usually vague) description is available and who they believe is a potential suspect for the crime. The only extrinsic facts here relate to the specific crime and the description given.
(c) A pattern of crimes is established from analysis and / or other intelligence is received which establishes that a particular type of crime is committed in a particular area at a particular time in a particular way, maybe or maybe not with some indication of the description of the suspects involved. They patrol that area at that time and stop and search people who are suspected based on whatever the parameters they have been given are. This may well include the fact that 90% of those described as being responsible are of ethnicity "A" or whatever. Obviously there is a lot more extrinsic information involved in this category than (a) or (b) ... but many of the stop and searches carried out will end up being pretty much category (a) or (b) anyway.

You talk of "racial profiling" of crimes - the only way that is used in the UK is as part of the analysis of crime patterns, based on descriptions given, surveillance, the people arrested and charged, etc. As such it results in activity in category (c) ... but, again I stress, no-one should be subjected to any action solely on the basis of their ethnicity or any other personal characteristic. (And nor should anyone be excused from any action solely on the basis of their ethnicity or any other personal characteristics). But my point is that if the analysis suggests people of a particular ethnicity (or other characteristic) are more likely to be engaged in a particular criminal activity then it is common sense that more attention should be focused on that group and less attention be focused on other groups.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

(b) is justified.

(a) is decidedly dodgy, but could be justified. I don't trust the police with this judgement, though. It's too open to abuse, generally speaking. I see it regularly where I live – people are harassed not for being black, but for being scruffy. People are told they can't sit and drink in certain places, so they just go elsewhere to do it, often outside my door, as it happens, as there are steps to sit on. All they want to do is sit and have a drink, though. I have never seen any trouble from them. If in doubt, leave people alone!*

(c) is unjustified. Simple as that. The police – and the rest of us – need to find other ways to address such problems.


*Basically, (a) is a stick to beat people with: if a copper wants to hassle you, they will come up with a reason for saying that you were acting suspiciously. It's such a vague term that it's easy to come up with a bullshit justification.

 

[detective-boy]

[H]ow do you know that it has high levels of support. From whom? How were respondents chosen, and how was it ensured that they were in some way representative?

Because there is frequent media coverage of the support it continues to receive, not least from their Independent Advisory Group. The groundswell of support initially came from the families of victims and other ordinary people in the areas largely affected. You imply from your question that the police or some other authority established this group. They didn't. The group invented themselves, initially to be extremely critical of the police for their lack of action about the shooting/ stabbing murders. As for the Independent Advisory Group, you would have to ask them how they ensure that they are representative as they are, er, independent.

I am sure that there are issues with representation. These things tend to get taken over by politicians, wannabe politicians, people with personal axes to grind, etc. But it is for people to engage with existing arrangements, or develop their own if they do not believe that they are being properly represented and we should not be saying that it is the job of the police to "organise" consultative arrangements. It is not their job. They have got enough to do anyway. And there is a clear conflict of interest in them doing so.

 

[butchersapron]

Where is the report that support in the media is based on?