S
slowboy
Guest
a criminal is a criminal no matter what the colour ,
Are Black kids to blame for street robbery?
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
TinyCrendon
New Member
no its racist and this is why.
compare white boys from similar socio-economic backgrounds to black boys of the same socio-economic background, not white boys to black boys.
of course no one is going to do that when you can subtley slur black kids.
Paul Condon's figures were at the time racist as HE CHOSE to highlight one area of crime (robbery) which was predominantly committed in CERTAIN AREAS OF LONDON by black kids.
Why did he choose to highlight such a specific crime in specific areas ? you tell me...
and one of the most subtle and pertinent claims of the racist right, who have great subtlety in their langauge and debating methods (you can see them here), are that `people cry racism whenever we try to discuss the subject` which is quite right, we do.
i say, why do you want to discuss it ? what fascinates you about immigrant crime over that well-known and oft-discussed topic white crime, what is it that gets your juices flowing ? what are we going to `solve` by it ?
<waits for avoidence of topic/questions by lightweight right wing rent a bullied geek crowd>
compare white boys from similar socio-economic backgrounds to black boys of the same socio-economic background, not white boys to black boys.
of course no one is going to do that when you can subtley slur black kids.
Paul Condon's figures were at the time racist as HE CHOSE to highlight one area of crime (robbery) which was predominantly committed in CERTAIN AREAS OF LONDON by black kids.
Why did he choose to highlight such a specific crime in specific areas ? you tell me...
and one of the most subtle and pertinent claims of the racist right, who have great subtlety in their langauge and debating methods (you can see them here), are that `people cry racism whenever we try to discuss the subject` which is quite right, we do.
i say, why do you want to discuss it ? what fascinates you about immigrant crime over that well-known and oft-discussed topic white crime, what is it that gets your juices flowing ? what are we going to `solve` by it ?
<waits for avoidence of topic/questions by lightweight right wing rent a bullied geek crowd>
Yes Adam. I usually come in on talk about race here, but I can't seem to get worked up about this thread. Just this for now:
Pooka said -
"this debate can only credibly be led by the black community; it's for the rest of us to provide the space and support for them to do that without exposing themselves to the racist rabble".
This statement is well fucked up, sorry.
1) It's debateable that there is a "black community". My local community is black and white people (and others). I have not necessarily anymore or less affinity with anyone around me because they are either black or white.
2) "the rest of us" - An assumption that you're addressing an exclusively white audience.
3) "provide the space and support..." - like the kind and benificent masters we are.
4) "...without exposing themselves to the racist rabble" - patronising, again implying we (white people) make the decisions.
Apologies Pooka. It's just that this sentence leapt out to me as an example of well-meaning but infact quite condescending, even racist in itself, white liberal bollocks.
Pooka said -
"this debate can only credibly be led by the black community; it's for the rest of us to provide the space and support for them to do that without exposing themselves to the racist rabble".
This statement is well fucked up, sorry.
1) It's debateable that there is a "black community". My local community is black and white people (and others). I have not necessarily anymore or less affinity with anyone around me because they are either black or white.
2) "the rest of us" - An assumption that you're addressing an exclusively white audience.
3) "provide the space and support..." - like the kind and benificent masters we are.
4) "...without exposing themselves to the racist rabble" - patronising, again implying we (white people) make the decisions.
Apologies Pooka. It's just that this sentence leapt out to me as an example of well-meaning but infact quite condescending, even racist in itself, white liberal bollocks.
Well, I don't often get hot under the collar reading these boards, but I am now!
Adam:
I take it your reference to the "racist right" and "you can see them here" - included me. Well, I have no problems being to the right of you matey, indeed would squirm in my seat otherwise, but forgive me if I don't quite see you as quite the immutable reference point that you do. I've had arguements with New Labourites who pigeon hole me as an old lefty, and that doesn't bother me either. But "racist" is deeply offensive, arrogant shite - there is nothing racist in anything I, Spud, isvic, pinkmonkey, Detective Boy, atc, Peter Mattise.............. have said - other than in some superficial, lazy, right-on interpretation in your head.
So the debate is being raised to perpetrate a subtle slur on black kids? I would have thought the credentials of the organisers would put the hat on that one, unless you see them as some clever front - more conspiracy theories from the far left?
Compare black and white kids in the same socio-economic circumstances - of course, that should be part of the debate - and then factor in the fact that the black kids face discrimination too. We really don't need Janet and John lessons in social research, Adam.
Did the Met highlight street crime in certain areas of london for racists reasons? I doubt it - I've seen ethnic analyses of organised, professional crime showing that the leading perpetrators are primarily white, family based networks, followed by Turks and Chinese (the Independents search engine is down at the moment, or I'd give you the link).
"and one of the most subtle and pertinent claims of the racist right, who have great subtlety in their langauge and debating methods (you can see them here), are that `people cry racism whenever we try to discuss the subject` which is quite right, we do." Well, I assume you'll be writing to the Voice and to the organisers of this debate to tell them they're racist too? Truth is, peope who cry racist at every reference to race are usually more concerned about proclaiming their own dubious credentials than actually trying to make a difference to anything.
And as for "right wing rent a bullied geek crowd" - gives the lie to your post. It's aim is to insult rather than engage.
Truth is there are people who want use their reason, the best available evidence and the most authoritative experience to inform their understanding of the world before supporting or gainsaying public policy. I'd hope to find such people at the debate. And there are people who want to rely on well worn ideologies, sacred texts and pavlovian sloganising. Which group are you in Adam?
Hatboy:
Re "black community"; there are communities within communities. We all share the experience of living in Brixton (in our case). But we don't all share the experience of growing up with descrimination as part of our landscape. To pretend otherwise is presumption. People who have that experience have insights and understanding that white people like you and I can only learn from them. And they can address the issues without even the most numbskull of the knee-jerks denouncing them as racist.
"The rest of us" - no, I made no presumption as to who I was addressing, I was speaking for "people like me".
"Provide the space and support" - since when did supporting someone imply mastery?
"Without exposing themselves to the racist rabble" - well, prove me wrong. My understanding is that there are more than enough racists out there prepared to take any recognition of a problem, by black people, as an admission that there is an innate link between race and crime. That being so, it would be surprising if black people weren't extremely wary of going anywhere near it publicly. We do have a duty to fo just as I said. And not least because, overwhelmingly, white people do make the decisions (take a look at parliament, the cabinet, the local council). And therein lies the responsibility.
Racist? Bollocks
Condescending? Bollocks
White? As it happens
Liberal? Absolutely, and proud of it!
Adam:
I take it your reference to the "racist right" and "you can see them here" - included me. Well, I have no problems being to the right of you matey, indeed would squirm in my seat otherwise, but forgive me if I don't quite see you as quite the immutable reference point that you do. I've had arguements with New Labourites who pigeon hole me as an old lefty, and that doesn't bother me either. But "racist" is deeply offensive, arrogant shite - there is nothing racist in anything I, Spud, isvic, pinkmonkey, Detective Boy, atc, Peter Mattise.............. have said - other than in some superficial, lazy, right-on interpretation in your head.
So the debate is being raised to perpetrate a subtle slur on black kids? I would have thought the credentials of the organisers would put the hat on that one, unless you see them as some clever front - more conspiracy theories from the far left?
Compare black and white kids in the same socio-economic circumstances - of course, that should be part of the debate - and then factor in the fact that the black kids face discrimination too. We really don't need Janet and John lessons in social research, Adam.
Did the Met highlight street crime in certain areas of london for racists reasons? I doubt it - I've seen ethnic analyses of organised, professional crime showing that the leading perpetrators are primarily white, family based networks, followed by Turks and Chinese (the Independents search engine is down at the moment, or I'd give you the link).
"and one of the most subtle and pertinent claims of the racist right, who have great subtlety in their langauge and debating methods (you can see them here), are that `people cry racism whenever we try to discuss the subject` which is quite right, we do." Well, I assume you'll be writing to the Voice and to the organisers of this debate to tell them they're racist too? Truth is, peope who cry racist at every reference to race are usually more concerned about proclaiming their own dubious credentials than actually trying to make a difference to anything.
And as for "right wing rent a bullied geek crowd" - gives the lie to your post. It's aim is to insult rather than engage.
Truth is there are people who want use their reason, the best available evidence and the most authoritative experience to inform their understanding of the world before supporting or gainsaying public policy. I'd hope to find such people at the debate. And there are people who want to rely on well worn ideologies, sacred texts and pavlovian sloganising. Which group are you in Adam?
Hatboy:
Re "black community"; there are communities within communities. We all share the experience of living in Brixton (in our case). But we don't all share the experience of growing up with descrimination as part of our landscape. To pretend otherwise is presumption. People who have that experience have insights and understanding that white people like you and I can only learn from them. And they can address the issues without even the most numbskull of the knee-jerks denouncing them as racist.
"The rest of us" - no, I made no presumption as to who I was addressing, I was speaking for "people like me".
"Provide the space and support" - since when did supporting someone imply mastery?
"Without exposing themselves to the racist rabble" - well, prove me wrong. My understanding is that there are more than enough racists out there prepared to take any recognition of a problem, by black people, as an admission that there is an innate link between race and crime. That being so, it would be surprising if black people weren't extremely wary of going anywhere near it publicly. We do have a duty to fo just as I said. And not least because, overwhelmingly, white people do make the decisions (take a look at parliament, the cabinet, the local council). And therein lies the responsibility.
Racist? Bollocks
Condescending? Bollocks
White? As it happens
Liberal? Absolutely, and proud of it!
Clapham Omnibus
a bit laid back
Lets see when the Borough Commanders loose hundreds of their officers to Transport, CT,SB any all others who shout out politically.
We will be left with year old probationers on the streets who still have to learn the craft.
What a disaster.
We will be left with year old probationers on the streets who still have to learn the craft.
What a disaster.
Well, Adam, for me I want to discuss it because I don't understand it. And I would like to, if I am to do my job properly.
I suspect the comments you make about socio-economic groupings are pretty relevant - but I don't know.
I have no particular interest in street robbery and black youth. I would be equally interested in any other discussion of why a particular group specialises in or favours a particular crime, but this is the one on offer.
And the reason it's been chosen is probably the same reason that Paul Condon talked about it - it's very obvious (on the street), very much in peoples minds (personal safety going about their business) and very common (lots of people affected directly as victims, suspects, witnesses, families ...).
And, oh yeah, the mainstream media (well known for not being at all institutionally racist or anything else) talk about it incessantly. So it's in peoples minds.
TinyCrendon
New Member
.
Thus speaketh the 'Hard-Hitting Journalist'
You can probably afford to live well away from areas with significant street-crime.
You're also Middle-Class so you had that bit more social-mobility than most Inner-City dwellers.
Don't get arsey if others want to discuss what affects them
Adam:
Yup, calling someone racist touches a nerve - so would calling them child molesters, rapists or wife beaters. Suggest you try it in a pub some time.
"most of it is rubbish" - kind of you, which bits weren't?
I made no reference to dogma, rather sacred texts. And you are one of the posters here who routinely links (or c+p's) tracts by His Holiness Chomsky or Blessed Bookchin in support of ( and sometimes substitute for) your arguements.
"culturally nationalist" - I struggle to know what this means, this debate is about crime in Britain by British kids. I hope you're not making the tabloid allusion your usage suggests.
I agree that the title for the debate is potentially inflammatory and devisive. But I guess the people organising it are better placed to judge that risk than either you or I.
{edited to avoid being gratuitously inflammatory }
Yup, calling someone racist touches a nerve - so would calling them child molesters, rapists or wife beaters. Suggest you try it in a pub some time.
"most of it is rubbish" - kind of you, which bits weren't?
I made no reference to dogma, rather sacred texts. And you are one of the posters here who routinely links (or c+p's) tracts by His Holiness Chomsky or Blessed Bookchin in support of ( and sometimes substitute for) your arguements.
"culturally nationalist" - I struggle to know what this means, this debate is about crime in Britain by British kids. I hope you're not making the tabloid allusion your usage suggests.
I agree that the title for the debate is potentially inflammatory and devisive. But I guess the people organising it are better placed to judge that risk than either you or I.
{edited to avoid being gratuitously inflammatory }
I disagree with Adam but unlike others on this forum, rumble IS a racist (or as bigotted as to make no effective difference) so he can fuck right off. We know what HIS agenda is from the Politcs forum and his ravings about race and immigration and asylum seekers. Interesting, and all too predictable, that this thread draws his first ever (?) contribution to the Brixton forum.
WoW It wasn't the race element that got me posting, more the idea that a fearless journo would regard discussion of race issues as inflammatory.
I lived a while in an inner-city area, there was lots of crime so I moved out to the suburbs where there isn't much crime. I do drive a lot around Town, so I can report what I see.
I lived a while in an inner-city area, there was lots of crime so I moved out to the suburbs where there isn't much crime. I do drive a lot around Town, so I can report what I see.
TinyCrendon
New Member
boogie
I think its very sad that a discussion like this is going on. Crime has nothing to do witth ethnicity unless those in power want it to be for their own agendas. It's easier to police when you have an identified enemy and even better when they are a foreign enemy.
These debates on crime and ethnicity have been going on for decades and nothing moves on, just a different set of right wing bigots calling the tune every year.
Courtney Griffiths will be there I hear, i did a conference with him which was in 1987 fifteen years ago where the debate was white people black justice. Which looked at the false assumption of young black men and crime and the states response to this. So these conferneces agendas meetings are not something new, they happened under every government.
Im bored with all this focus on black males and crime. And all those who attend should be thinking why they are debating this issue in Brixton and why not debating why white young men are doing crime in Bootle, or Easterhouse.
Finally somebody made a point on the voice newspapers concerns re crime. I persoanlly cannot stick that paper it's a black version of the sun and most people i know only look at it, not buy it for the jos pages. Just because a paper that purports to support the black community talks of crime does not mean it's so.
They cannot even stick up for us Jamaicans when the bill talk of 'Yardie' gangsters.
These debates on crime and ethnicity have been going on for decades and nothing moves on, just a different set of right wing bigots calling the tune every year.
Courtney Griffiths will be there I hear, i did a conference with him which was in 1987 fifteen years ago where the debate was white people black justice. Which looked at the false assumption of young black men and crime and the states response to this. So these conferneces agendas meetings are not something new, they happened under every government.
Im bored with all this focus on black males and crime. And all those who attend should be thinking why they are debating this issue in Brixton and why not debating why white young men are doing crime in Bootle, or Easterhouse.
Finally somebody made a point on the voice newspapers concerns re crime. I persoanlly cannot stick that paper it's a black version of the sun and most people i know only look at it, not buy it for the jos pages. Just because a paper that purports to support the black community talks of crime does not mean it's so.
They cannot even stick up for us Jamaicans when the bill talk of 'Yardie' gangsters.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I must say I agree that the Voice paper is a load of shite and has been for a long time.
It only exists because so many public service organisations purchase advertising in the Voice in order to avoid accusations that they could not give a fuck about the ethnic make up of their workforce.
It certainly does not make it's cash from the cover price.
Going back to my earlier post, I will observe with interest those connected with organising the event for any signs that they are about to make a leap for higher up the greasy pole on the back of this.
It only exists because so many public service organisations purchase advertising in the Voice in order to avoid accusations that they could not give a fuck about the ethnic make up of their workforce.
It certainly does not make it's cash from the cover price.
Going back to my earlier post, I will observe with interest those connected with organising the event for any signs that they are about to make a leap for higher up the greasy pole on the back of this.
Well said TC. Benny and the boys would be proud of that. The voice is rubbish. And those involved and give these debates some sort of kudos are seeking better and higher things. Some of those who were militant in the past have sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver by entertaining these notions.
It would be a more interesting debate if the Commissioner of the Met, City Police, Merseyside Police, Greater Manchester Police the home secretary debated this notion of 'black' crime, for the camera without any 'black involvement' then maybe we would find out what the agenda is.
It would be a more interesting debate if the Commissioner of the Met, City Police, Merseyside Police, Greater Manchester Police the home secretary debated this notion of 'black' crime, for the camera without any 'black involvement' then maybe we would find out what the agenda is.
TinyCrendon
New Member
PB said "It would be a more interesting debate if the Commissioner of the Met, City Police, Merseyside Police, Greater Manchester Police the home secretary debated this notion of 'black' crime, for the camera without any 'black involvement' then maybe we would find out what the agenda is."
Exactly.
And maybe our U75 brethern would do the same ? Coz it's all gone quiet again...
Exactly.
And maybe our U75 brethern would do the same ? Coz it's all gone quiet again...
hipipol
Peckham Wry
No Debate-Lies become accepted "Truth"
Without debates of this type, in the public domain involving ALL parties, black, white, rich, poor, police, public, etc, representatives of the widest possible spectrum of society, then biased representation of statistics can and will be used by those who have a specific interest in influencing public opinion for some political reason. In the absence of unbiased enquiry the half truths promulgated by those who see the race "industry" as an avenue for their own advancement become accepted as FACT.
This is an extremely unhealthy situation. It allows bigotry to present itself as "concern", far right extremists to present themselves as fair and reasonable people who are simply couragously tackling what others are afraid to face, ignorance to masquerade as wisdom and xenophobic little-England thinking to hold its head up as the equal of reason.
Though the Black community should be prominant and take the lead in these debates it is wrong to think this is simply some kind of "black" problem, in that we all live in this country, all are affected by crime to a greater or lesser degreeand it will require the involvement of all sections of society in order to effect any change. If we do not engage with our neighbours there will never be any cohesion in society, the gaps between us all will grow, the ignorance which underpins rascist thinking will continue and the terrible waste of ability currently occurring for Black and Muslim Asian young men will go on.
I can see no benefit from strangling a debate which can only shed light on an obvious problem which to date, as a result of lack of information, can be so easily used by the far right to panic white voters into backing them. Ignorance begets fear and fearful people can be manipulated into doing terrible things- virtually every successful dictatorship has relied on this to maintain its power. As long as we remain ignorant of each other and what is really going on the ground will remain fertile for rabble rousing BNP types to plant the seeds of fear and despair, nurture them, tend them as they grow and finally reap a rich harvest of hate. To remain silent is the worste form of race crime there is for it hands the extremists their most potent weapon- credibility. If people can see there is something wrong and the only ones who are talking about it are neo-nazis then what the say is given more credence simply because the rest of us remain silent. Cant recall who said it but it fits-" All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for men of goodwill to remain silent".
Nothing was ever solved by simple ignoring it.
Without debates of this type, in the public domain involving ALL parties, black, white, rich, poor, police, public, etc, representatives of the widest possible spectrum of society, then biased representation of statistics can and will be used by those who have a specific interest in influencing public opinion for some political reason. In the absence of unbiased enquiry the half truths promulgated by those who see the race "industry" as an avenue for their own advancement become accepted as FACT.
This is an extremely unhealthy situation. It allows bigotry to present itself as "concern", far right extremists to present themselves as fair and reasonable people who are simply couragously tackling what others are afraid to face, ignorance to masquerade as wisdom and xenophobic little-England thinking to hold its head up as the equal of reason.
Though the Black community should be prominant and take the lead in these debates it is wrong to think this is simply some kind of "black" problem, in that we all live in this country, all are affected by crime to a greater or lesser degreeand it will require the involvement of all sections of society in order to effect any change. If we do not engage with our neighbours there will never be any cohesion in society, the gaps between us all will grow, the ignorance which underpins rascist thinking will continue and the terrible waste of ability currently occurring for Black and Muslim Asian young men will go on.
I can see no benefit from strangling a debate which can only shed light on an obvious problem which to date, as a result of lack of information, can be so easily used by the far right to panic white voters into backing them. Ignorance begets fear and fearful people can be manipulated into doing terrible things- virtually every successful dictatorship has relied on this to maintain its power. As long as we remain ignorant of each other and what is really going on the ground will remain fertile for rabble rousing BNP types to plant the seeds of fear and despair, nurture them, tend them as they grow and finally reap a rich harvest of hate. To remain silent is the worste form of race crime there is for it hands the extremists their most potent weapon- credibility. If people can see there is something wrong and the only ones who are talking about it are neo-nazis then what the say is given more credence simply because the rest of us remain silent. Cant recall who said it but it fits-" All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for men of goodwill to remain silent".
Nothing was ever solved by simple ignoring it.
Would Adam care to respond to the above post from hipipol, and in particular to respond DIRECTLY to ats' post earlier?
Because I think he is being unnecessarily inflammatory. To generalisingly lump people on this thead in with out and out racists is not only distorting the discussion, but is also insulting quite frankly.
Because I think he is being unnecessarily inflammatory. To generalisingly lump people on this thead in with out and out racists is not only distorting the discussion, but is also insulting quite frankly.
newbie
undisambiguated
Interesting set of stereotypes there, but perhaps worth considering, if only because the final question is so badly phrased, so firmly grasping the wrong end of the stick.
It's not 'black crime' that's important, it's street robbery.
Speaking personally, I don't know any diamond merchants or importers (any ethnicity) so their crimes don't concern me. I'm irritated if a shopkeeper overcharges, particularly if a twenty only gets change for a tenner, but it seldom rises above irritation, and standing and shouting usually wins because shopkeepers can't generally afford the hassle.
But having three guys with the collars of their leather jackets pulled up, cluster round and pull out a knife is totally terrifying. Nightmares. However much they take, however quickly it's over. And whatever they look like.
And that's where the emphasis in the original question lies, an emphasis Adam has completely missed. Street robbery has a greater effect, influences our behaviour more, than eg car crime or burglary. It's why the elderly are fightened to go out at night, why the back streets and dark corners are so deserted, why I won't walk up Josephine at night. What diamond merchants get up to is utterly irrelevant.
<cod sociology>
So who commits street robbery? Well, interestingly, I doubt it's often people who have the option of being a diamond merchant, an importer or a shopkeeper. Those options all need capital, connections, education. No, street robbery, like perhaps car crime, is committed by those at the bottom of the heirarchy, those without choices which will provide a better return for less risk. The ethnicity of the perps is possibly different in Easterhouse or Bootle (I don't know), but it seems likely they'll still be young men with a poor education and fewer options than aspirations.
But in this area there's a perception (and personally, I don't know if it's true) that the crime that frightens us most is more associated with young black men than with any other identifiable group. If that perception is clearly wrong, the evidence needs to be urgently presented and the perception challenged (which is presumably a possible outcome of this meeting). But if not, if there's an element of truth in the perception, then there's a legitimate and reasonable discusson to be had: for instance one could start by asking why that particular group might get a worse education, less career opportunity, less fairness than others.
</cod sociology>
hipipol: I believe the quote is Edmund Burke. He was having a go at the Terror which followed the French revolution, but also at Paine. A cogent post on your part. Likewise, William, adi and newbie.
paul - if this does end up playing to a right wing agenda, then I for one will be dissappointed. Amongst my neighbours, black and white, there is concern that there is something to this. If it has any substance, then it should be addressed. I don't have the circulation figures of the Voice but if they're so low, surely it would fold? Topcat - I doubt there is any newspaper for whom the cover price meets the costs - that's why they carry adverts, as I'm sure Adam will tell you. I note from the web version that Year Zero (nice design by the way) is considering carrying adverts.
A debate between four white policemen about this subject would be the worst sort of way to proceed. I would expect those who oppose the debate this week would be ready to denounce it as racist propaganda - and it would be hard to defend it as otherwise, whatever the intention.
Adam.
Seems to me that the majority of posters to this thread hold the view that this debate is a valid one, albeit with sensible concerns about how it is conducted, by whom and where it leads to. You have responded by taking more and more insulting and extreme positions as you extend your tactic of setting up obnoxious straw men so you can knock them down.
First you accuse people of being racist - but can't point out where.
Next you accuse them of having a racist desire or motivation (were you educated by the Jesuits by any chance?)
And then for good measure, you accuse them of being eugenicists. Deeply insulting. I don't know your background Adam, but it's odds-on I've forgotten more genetics than you might aspire to and have NEVER had any truck with that nonsense. Sadly, a bastardised Darwinism seems to be infecting both the left and the right.
Why bother responding to you? Because unsubstantiated smears should not go unanswered and (more important) attempts to choke reason with cheap slogans (by the left or the right) should always be challenged.
You ask what people's interest in this subject is?
1. As newbie has set out, we live in an area where quality of life is corroded by street crime - its causes are a legitimate concern.
2. Some of us count amongst our neighbours people with adolescent kids who are also black. And they worry about this stuff.
3. We also live in an area where there has long been a history of the police targetting black youth, under the old suss laws and more recently stop and search. That has been devisive and alienating and has undermined the police's capacity to do their job. The allegation of higher incidence of street crime amongst black lads has been used as a vindication of that. Indeed, that may have been part of the reason for the Met releasing the figures they did.
Either this assertion is wrong (in which case it should be nailed) or it isn't, in which case we all need to adress the reasons.
How should that be done?
Well firstly, as you suggest, by proper use of the statistics. And of course, any analysis must first control for factors we know are correlates of crime (education, housing, crime, recreation etc) and then see if there is any residual variance to be explained. If there is not, then there is no case to answer and the policy options for keeping young people away from crime should be identical for all kids, regardless of ethnicity. If there is, then specific policies need to address specific groups.
But stats are rarely enough on their own. Moreover, the questions one poses of them always arise from some initial insight or intuition - in technical terms hypotheses to be tested. And I for one would consider it presumptive in the extreme if that were driven exclusively by middle class white. The people who know best are going to be the kids themselves (black or white), followed by their families, parents, friends, teachers and so on.
Nonetheless, what might our hunch be? Mine would be:
1. Most people are decent and just want to get on with their lives. Some are career criminals and some are psychopaths, but they are few in number.
2.But we are all (regardless of age, race, gender, whatever)capable of anti-social, selfish behaviour to the point of criminality. If we're well heeled, feel ourselves to have a stake in society, a job, a role, to get at least as much out as we put in, to have something to lose, to have people dependent upon us - then our transgressions are unlikely to go beyond traffic offences, creative accounting on our tax forms, or economy with the truth when we sell our motors/houses whatever.
3. But if we're young men (prone to risk taking, scant regard for future consequences and a dollop of testosterone fuelled ggression), out of work with time on our hands, poor educational attainments and few prospects, peer pressure (and media pressure) to sport the latest consumer trappings - then some of us will transgress in such ways as street crime.
Are there anyways in which that might be different between black and white kids? Well, black kids do have poorer job prospects and poorer educational attainments. They also are on the receiving end of descrimination, which compounds those two, but also makes it harder for them to see themselves as stakeholders in the larger community. It may well be that that fuels a counter-culture, in which they are stakeholders. If that is the case, then there are specific issues to be addressed.
But that's just one person's hunch. It needs to be tested, against statistics and against experience. Which is what I expect to be the motivation behind the debate on Wednesday. If it turns out to be a bun-fight for the benefit of the media, then it will be an opportunity wasted.
That's all. If you want to continue insulting people, then suit yourself. But try and convince us you're not using your "pussy wipes" to think with - before we even consider depriving you of them
paul - if this does end up playing to a right wing agenda, then I for one will be dissappointed. Amongst my neighbours, black and white, there is concern that there is something to this. If it has any substance, then it should be addressed. I don't have the circulation figures of the Voice but if they're so low, surely it would fold? Topcat - I doubt there is any newspaper for whom the cover price meets the costs - that's why they carry adverts, as I'm sure Adam will tell you. I note from the web version that Year Zero (nice design by the way) is considering carrying adverts.
A debate between four white policemen about this subject would be the worst sort of way to proceed. I would expect those who oppose the debate this week would be ready to denounce it as racist propaganda - and it would be hard to defend it as otherwise, whatever the intention.
Adam.
Seems to me that the majority of posters to this thread hold the view that this debate is a valid one, albeit with sensible concerns about how it is conducted, by whom and where it leads to. You have responded by taking more and more insulting and extreme positions as you extend your tactic of setting up obnoxious straw men so you can knock them down.
First you accuse people of being racist - but can't point out where.
Next you accuse them of having a racist desire or motivation (were you educated by the Jesuits by any chance?)
And then for good measure, you accuse them of being eugenicists. Deeply insulting. I don't know your background Adam, but it's odds-on I've forgotten more genetics than you might aspire to and have NEVER had any truck with that nonsense. Sadly, a bastardised Darwinism seems to be infecting both the left and the right.
Why bother responding to you? Because unsubstantiated smears should not go unanswered and (more important) attempts to choke reason with cheap slogans (by the left or the right) should always be challenged.
You ask what people's interest in this subject is?
1. As newbie has set out, we live in an area where quality of life is corroded by street crime - its causes are a legitimate concern.
2. Some of us count amongst our neighbours people with adolescent kids who are also black. And they worry about this stuff.
3. We also live in an area where there has long been a history of the police targetting black youth, under the old suss laws and more recently stop and search. That has been devisive and alienating and has undermined the police's capacity to do their job. The allegation of higher incidence of street crime amongst black lads has been used as a vindication of that. Indeed, that may have been part of the reason for the Met releasing the figures they did.
Either this assertion is wrong (in which case it should be nailed) or it isn't, in which case we all need to adress the reasons.
How should that be done?
Well firstly, as you suggest, by proper use of the statistics. And of course, any analysis must first control for factors we know are correlates of crime (education, housing, crime, recreation etc) and then see if there is any residual variance to be explained. If there is not, then there is no case to answer and the policy options for keeping young people away from crime should be identical for all kids, regardless of ethnicity. If there is, then specific policies need to address specific groups.
But stats are rarely enough on their own. Moreover, the questions one poses of them always arise from some initial insight or intuition - in technical terms hypotheses to be tested. And I for one would consider it presumptive in the extreme if that were driven exclusively by middle class white. The people who know best are going to be the kids themselves (black or white), followed by their families, parents, friends, teachers and so on.
Nonetheless, what might our hunch be? Mine would be:
1. Most people are decent and just want to get on with their lives. Some are career criminals and some are psychopaths, but they are few in number.
2.But we are all (regardless of age, race, gender, whatever)capable of anti-social, selfish behaviour to the point of criminality. If we're well heeled, feel ourselves to have a stake in society, a job, a role, to get at least as much out as we put in, to have something to lose, to have people dependent upon us - then our transgressions are unlikely to go beyond traffic offences, creative accounting on our tax forms, or economy with the truth when we sell our motors/houses whatever.
3. But if we're young men (prone to risk taking, scant regard for future consequences and a dollop of testosterone fuelled ggression), out of work with time on our hands, poor educational attainments and few prospects, peer pressure (and media pressure) to sport the latest consumer trappings - then some of us will transgress in such ways as street crime.
Are there anyways in which that might be different between black and white kids? Well, black kids do have poorer job prospects and poorer educational attainments. They also are on the receiving end of descrimination, which compounds those two, but also makes it harder for them to see themselves as stakeholders in the larger community. It may well be that that fuels a counter-culture, in which they are stakeholders. If that is the case, then there are specific issues to be addressed.
But that's just one person's hunch. It needs to be tested, against statistics and against experience. Which is what I expect to be the motivation behind the debate on Wednesday. If it turns out to be a bun-fight for the benefit of the media, then it will be an opportunity wasted.
That's all. If you want to continue insulting people, then suit yourself. But try and convince us you're not using your "pussy wipes" to think with - before we even consider depriving you of them
In reply to hippol's post it would be nice for all sides to discuss the issues, but these issuses have been debated ever since i could remember.
What i was suggestioning in my post was that if you get the heads of the police forces such as merseyside, the met and Blunkett together to debate it without any black involvement.
I believe this would get rid of all the rubbish and people would find out what their agenda in pushing these figures are.
I'm sure they all meet fairly regular to debate issues, but you and i are not invited to these meetings.
We're only invited to have an opinion when they say we can.
What i was suggestioning in my post was that if you get the heads of the police forces such as merseyside, the met and Blunkett together to debate it without any black involvement.
I believe this would get rid of all the rubbish and people would find out what their agenda in pushing these figures are.
I'm sure they all meet fairly regular to debate issues, but you and i are not invited to these meetings.
We're only invited to have an opinion when they say we can.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
re. The Voice.....
I know that it is more expensive to put a job advert in the Voice than the Guardian........
I know that it is more expensive to put a job advert in the Voice than the Guardian........
All IMO, this
Not sure I agree with that. It's much harder to expose any underlying racist agenda among Police and MPs than it was ten or twenty years ago. That's partly because the newer generation of public figures have genuinely tried to reinvent themselves as
as not racist. (To what extent they've succeeded is up for debate).
Also they'd never be completely honest even in a closed meeting because there would be leaks and scandals.
Not sure I agree with that. It's much harder to expose any underlying racist agenda among Police and MPs than it was ten or twenty years ago. That's partly because the newer generation of public figures have genuinely tried to reinvent themselves as
as not racist. (To what extent they've succeeded is up for debate).
Also they'd never be completely honest even in a closed meeting because there would be leaks and scandals.
TinyCrendon
New Member
.
I genuinely don't know how to respond to that Adam!!! 
I generally respect a lot of what you post and I am as likely to agree with it as not. But what you have posted above is too antagonistic, and arrogant. I'll let others pick it up perhaps.
I generally respect a lot of what you post and I am as likely to agree with it as not. But what you have posted above is too antagonistic, and arrogant. I'll let others pick it up perhaps.
Similar threads
