Stop And Search 'Often Only Happens Because The Person Is Black', Home Secretary Theresa May Says

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:05 pm

First topic message reminder :

The Home Secretary has said that "a large number" of stop and searches by police only happen because the person being stopped is black.
In the most strident comments she has made on the disproportionality of the use of stop and search between people of different ethnicities, Theresa May said it was "absolutely disgraceful" and said many black and minority ethnic people felt being stopped had become "a way of life".
She told the House of Commons: "It is very clear that in a large number of cases the reasonable grounds for suspicion were not there and one can only therefore assume, given that black people are six times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person, that it is precisely the fact that they are a black person that has led to that stop and search taking place.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/30/theresa-may-attacks-stop-and-search_n_5239809.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 3:39 pm

So still no answer to any of the points.

Oh my, let me know when you do, as I will continue to hound you each time I am on until you do.

Best of luck chap!

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 3:41 pm

You have no points.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 3:42 pm

You have no answers to my points, end of story and a complete copout to debate.

Try again

and best of luck

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 3:56 pm

You have no points.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 3:58 pm

Sorry that is not an answer to the questions

Try again chap

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 4:02 pm

Asking stupid and irrelevant questions are not points either.....

And as the victims of these crimes are mostly black too, I thought you would be a bit more concerned, instead of trying to deny it is happening....?

Laughing

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 4:04 pm

Oh my another copout excuse, if you back the view you do, then you can prove scientifically your views with biological evidence to back them up, thus you need to show biological evidence of which yet you have avoided worse than the plague.

Try again and good luck

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 4:54 pm

Has there been a scientific biological study into propensity of crime by race.....????

So if not, then why are you asking me to provide something that doesn't exist?????

Purely as a red herring!!!!!

But I'm sure if one did exist, crime rate facts and statistics would be a major part of it!!!!

And I'm surprised you don't care about the high level of black victims from this high level of black crime, you seem more interested in denying it even happens at all!!!

Why is that dodge???

Laughing

From the telegraph article.....

"...Many of the victims of street crime are black: twice as high a proportion of
the total victims, according to the Met’s figures, as you would expect from
the proportion of black people in London’s population as a whole.
It is not remotely likely that their racism leads these black victims to
mis-identify the people who attack them as black when they are in fact white
– and it is scarcely more plausible to maintain that white victims routinely
mis-identify their attackers as black when they are white.
In the 21st century, the principal grounds on which the Met is accused of
racism is that black men make up a much higher proportion of the people
stopped and searched by police officers than any other ethnic group.
The Equality Commission assumes that such a practice shows that officers must
be covertly racist.
But the disproportionate number of black men identified by victims as
perpetrators demonstrates that racism need not have anything to do with it:
when the victim identifies the assailant as a black male, it is logical,
indeed necessary, for officers to start investigating black suspects.
That may lead them to stop and search black males who are in the vicinity and
who have other characteristics identified by the victim.
Officers from the Met could, of course, stop and search old white women or
middle-aged Asian mothers instead....."

Well?

Black reported for committing crime, who do the police stop and search?

Old Chinese women?

Laughing

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:14 pm

PMSL so again where is the biological evidence that blacks are more criminally minded?

You need to answer, because if there was a difference between humans on race with crime, it would be known, but we already know that biologically humans are all one race, thus negating any view point they would be criminally different.

Hence why we do know that it is many social factors that can increase crime, but here in the UK, we know whites are less likely to be stopped and searched, even though they vastly commit more crimes, thus vastly reducing the amounts of whites likely to be caught. We also know that whites are less likely to be arrested even if they have committed the same crime, even more shocking when they vastly commit more crimes and to top it off most blacks arrested end up in Jail where as whites do not. Where again many whites get away without a stop and search and also get away with arrests to get to the conviction part they still get off in vast numbers.

Sorry did you havea point or are you going to attempt to answer my question? Because so far I am enjoying the amusment where you can show me where blacks are so different to whites when biologically we are all one race?

hence my utter amusement where you wait till I am offline to write a new long post ignoring all points posting more waffle, thinking and hoping I will miss your poor answers/

Try again chap

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 5:22 pm

Waffle dodge!

Your demand for the mythical biological study has been exposed as a red herring!

You win nothing by demanding I provide something that doesn't exist!

Laughing

It's just another diversion!

All the figures show that blacks are hugely disproportionately responsible for more crime by a factor of 6-7 times.

This is true in UK, up Australia and everywhere else where there are blacks.

Some would say that is conclusive enough!

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:25 pm

Well, it's true Tommy, it's true indeed.

And all of those places where millions of Brits, Americans and other white Westerners have emigrated to - you know - the ones didge goes on about - it's the same there right didge - the immigrants are 6 - 7 times more likely to commit crimes, for socio-economic reasons?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:26 pm

Didge wrote:PMSL so again where is the biological evidence that blacks are more criminally minded?

You need to answer, because if there was a difference between humans on race with crime, it would be known, but we already know that biologically humans are all one race, thus negating any view point they would be criminally different.

Hence why we do know that it is many social factors that can increase crime, but here in the UK, we know whites are less likely to be stopped and searched, even though they vastly commit more crimes, thus vastly reducing the amounts of whites likely to be caught. We also know that whites are less likely to be arrested even if they have committed the same crime, even more shocking when they vastly commit more crimes and to top it off most blacks arrested end up in Jail where as whites do not. Where again many whites get away without a stop and search and also get away with arrests to get to the conviction part they still get off in vast numbers.

Sorry did you havea point or are you going to attempt to answer my question? Because so far I am enjoying the amusment where you can show me where blacks are so different to whites when biologically we are all one race?

hence my utter amusement where you wait till I am offline to write a new long post ignoring all points posting more waffle, thinking and hoping I will miss your poor answers/

Try again chap

To continue you my post which Matti yet again failed to answer

There is no red herring:

Episode 1: "The Difference Between Us"

To all intents and purposes Roxanna was as white as anybody, but the 1/16 of her that was black outvoted the other 15 parts and made her a Negro. She was a slave and saleable as such. Her child was 31 parts white and he too was a slave, and by a fiction of law and custom, a Negro.
- Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson

Everyone can tell a Nubian from a Norwegian, so why not divide people into different races? That's the question explored in "The Difference Between Us," which demonstrates how recent scientific discoveries have toppled our common-sense assumption that the world's peoples come bundled into separate groups. It begins by following a dozen students, including black athletes and Asian string players, who sequence and compare their own DNA. The results surprise the students and the viewer, when they discover their closest genetic matches are as likely to be with people from other "races" as their own.

Much of the program is devoted to discovering why. It examines several discoveries that illustrate why humans cannot be subdivided into races, and reveals that there are no characteristics, no traits - not even one gene - that distinguish all members of one "race" from all members of another.

Humans are among the most similar of all species. That's because modern humans, all of us, evolved in Africa, and began leaving only about 70,000 years ago. As we migrated across the globe, populations bumped into one another, mixing their mates - and genes. Populations have just not been isolated long enough to evolve into separate races, or sub-species.
In a "walk" from the equator to the North, we can see how visual characteristics vary gradually and continuously between populations. There are no boundaries.

We also learn that most traits - be they skin color or hair texture or blood group - are influenced by separate genes and thus inherited independently one from the other. Having one trait does not necessarily imply the existence of others. Skin color really is only skin deep.

Many of the variants in our visual characteristics, like different skin colors, appear to have evolved recently, after we left Africa. But the traits we care most about -- intelligence, musical ability, physical aptitude -- are old, and common to all populations. Geneticists have discovered that 85% of all genetic variants can be found within any local population, be they Poles or Hmong or Fulani. It turns out racial profiling is as inaccurate on the genetic level as it is on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Certainly some gene forms are found in greater frequency in some populations than others, such as the gene variants governing skin color, and for some diseases, like Tay Sachs and sickle cell. But are these markers of "race"? The mutation that causes sickle cell, we learn, was selected because it conferred resistance to malaria. It is found among people whose ancestors came from parts of the world where malaria was common - central and West Africa, Turkey, Arabia, India, Greece, and Sicily, but not southern Africa.
Yet we have a long history of searching for innate "racial" differences to explain differential group outcomes, be it disease, SAT scores, or athletic performance. In contrast to today's myth of innate black athletic superiority, one hundred years ago many whites felt that high African American disease and mortality rates were caused not by poverty, poor sanitation, and Jim Crow but because black people were inherently infirm and destined to die out. When influential Prudential Insurance Company statistician Frederick Hoffman compared death and disease rates between white and black people in 1896, he attributed the disparities to a "heritable race trait" among Negroes, ignoring the impact of poverty, poor sanitation, and over-crowding on health and mortality.

Today, it is still popular to attribute group differences in performance to innate "racial" traits. In "The Difference Between Us," many of our common myths about race - such as the "natural" advantages of black athletes, or the musical abilities of Asians - are taken apart.

Episode 2: "The Story We Tell"

All is race; there is no other truth.
- Benjamin Disraeli

But it's true that race has always been with us, right? Wrong. Ancient peoples stigmatized "others" on the grounds of language, custom, class, and especially religion, but they did not sort people into races.

"The Story We Tell" traces the origins of the racial idea to the European conquest of the Americas and to the American slave system, the first ever where all the slaves shared a physical trait: dark skin.

James Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of American Studies and History at George Washington University, explains it this way: "They found what they considered an endless labor supply. People who could be readily identified and so when they ran away they couldn't melt into the population like Native Americans could. People who knew how to grow tobacco, people who knew how to grow rice. They found the ideal, from their standpoint, the ideal labor source."

Ironically, it was not slavery but freedom - the revolutionary new idea of liberty and the natural rights of man - that led to the ideology of white supremacy.

Robin Kelley, Chair of the History Department at New York University, raises the conundrum haunting our Founders: "The problem that they had to figure out is how can we promote liberty, freedom, democracy on the one hand, and a system of slavery and exploitation of people who are non-white on the other?"

James Horton illuminates the story that helped reconcile that contradiction: "And the way you do that is to say, 'Yeah, but you know there is something different about these people. This whole business of inalienable rights, that's fine, but it only applies to certain people.'" It was not a coincidence that Thomas Jefferson, the apostle of freedom and a slaveholder, was the first American public figure to articulate a theory speculating upon the "natural" inferiority of Africans.

Similar logic rationalized the taking of Indian lands. When the "civilized" Cherokee were forcibly removed from their homes in Georgia to west of the Mississippi in 1838, one in four died in what became known as "The Trail of Tears." President Andrew Jackson defended Indian removal. It wasn't greed causing the Indians to "disappear," but the inevitable fate of an inferior people established "in the midst of a superior race."

By mid-19th century, with the help of new "scientific" studies, racial difference had become the accepted "common-sense" wisdom of white America. Race explained everything from individual behavior to the fate of human societies. It conveniently justified manifest destiny and American annexation of the Philippines. In the new monthly magazines of the late 19th century and at the remarkable indigenous people's displays at the 1904 World's Fair celebrating the centennial of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, we can see how American popular culture reinforced racial explanations for American progress and power, imprinting ideas of racial difference and white superiority deeply into our minds. "The Story We Tell" is an eye-opening tale of how deep and enduring social inequalities came to be rationalized as natural, reflecting not our social practices and public policies but nature's way.

Episode 3: "The House We Live In"

"Virginia law defined a Black person as a person with 1/16th African ancestry. Florida defined a black person as a person with 1/8th African ancestry. Alabama said, 'You are Black if you got any African ancestry at all.' But you know what this means? You can walk across a state line and literally, legally change race. Now what does race mean under those circumstances? You give me the power, I can make you any race I want you to be, because it is a social, political construction."
- James Horton, Benjamin Banneker Professor of American History,
George Washington University

But if race doesn't exist biologically, what is it? And should it matter? The final episode, "The House We Live In," is the first film on race to focus not on individual attitudes and behavior but on how our institutions leave different groups differently advantaged. Its subject is the "unmarked" race, white people. The shows makes visible the benefits that quietly and often invisibly accrue to white people, not always because of merit or hard work, but because our laws, courts, customs, and perhaps most pertinently, segregated neighborhoods, racialize opportunity.

The film begins by looking at the massive immigration from eastern and southern Europe early in the 20th century. Italians, Hebrews, Greeks and other ethnics were considered by many as separate races. Their "whiteness" had to be won. But who was "white?" The 1790 Naturalization Act had limited naturalized citizenship to "free, white persons." In 1915, Takeo Ozawa, a Japanese immigrant who had attended the University of California, appealed the rejection of his citizenship application. He argued that his skin was a white as any "white" person. But he also argued that race shouldn't matter - what mattered most was one's beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled against him, saying that Ozawa may be white but he was not Caucasian, and according to scientific evidence only Caucasians could be white people.

Several months later, Bhagat Singh Thind, a South Asian immigrant and U.S. Army veteran, argued that he should be granted citizenship since scientists classified Indians as caucasians. The Court, refuting its own reasoning in Ozawa said Thind may well be caucasian but he wasn't "white." Petition denied.

After WWII, all-white suburbs like Levittown popped up around the country, built with the help of new federal policies that directed government guaranteed loans to white homeowners. Real estate practices and Federal Housing Administration regulations (including red-lining, which originated as explicit government policy) kept non-whites out. In moving to these segregated suburbs, Italians, Jews and other European ethnics, once considered "not quite white," blended together and reaped the advantages of whiteness, including the accumulation of equity and wealth as their homes increased in value. Yet those opportunities for asset accumulation and upward mobility were denied many communities of color. Of the $120 billion of housing underwritten by the federal government between 1932 and 1964, less than 2% went to non-whites.

Today, the net worth of the average black family is about 1/8 that of the average white family. Much of that net worth derives from the value of the family's residence. As homes get passed from family to family through generation after generation, the real legacy of race is felt. The houses in predominantly white areas sell for much more than those in black, Hispanic or integrated neighborhoods, and so power, wealth, and advantage - or the lack of it - are passed down from parent to child. The starting line for the next generation is drawn at different points on the field. Surprising new studies reveal that the performance gaps in test scores, graduation rates, welfare usage and other measures between white and black people disappear once this "family wealth gap" is taken into account. This is one reason why 'color-blind' policies that pretend race doesn't exist are not the same thing as creating equality. It is why Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun

Do you want me to embarrass you further, so again so the biological evidence, because I am and it is really cool to keep watching you squrim

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 5:35 pm

Irrelevant waffle.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:37 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Irrelevant waffle.

There you have it, Matti classes science as irrelevant waffle, he would rather back unsubstantiated babble he has made up and claim science is waffle

Oh my

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Irrelevant waffle.

Yep.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 5:42 pm

Shady wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Irrelevant waffle.

Yep.

Another poster that thinks science is waffle, the forum dingleberry, lets have a new interlude for this poor chap

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 6:29 pm

Not science, just irrelevant waffle.

Blacks commit disproportionately more crime in London, these black areas with high crime are given extra policing, these police will be looking at the reported crimes, most of which are done by blacks, So who do they go stop and search?

Old Chinese women?

Come on dodge, you are waffling yourself into a right old mess here, try to quick to the relevant points.

We are talking about stop and search here in UK, but you are posting up irrelevant waffle from America.

Get a grip man!

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 6:39 pm

So science proves we are all one race biologically, and you call that waffle, even though we all know it negates your argument and that as most intelligent people know, it is social factors in regards to crime, not skin colour.
Even worse at every turn you still continue to avoid this and as seen stop and search is based upon poor stereotypes, not intelligence , of which a Government study has confirmed. Even worse you are so slow you base your view off a time frame and on a time in history in only one place. That even more is not science.

Try again

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 7:02 pm

So in an area with high black crime, who should the police stop and search?

Which is what this thread is about....

Laughing

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 7:17 pm

No, this thread is about Theresa May being angry that black people are being stopped and searched when no crime has been committed and they are not suspected of anything, they are just stopped because they are black. Get it. No? Not surprised, bigots never do.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Is it high black crime though when whites do not get arrested, or even stopped, because your views to an area high in crime are again based on poor view points and stats?

Holy crap on a cracker, now again answer the question

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 7:52 pm

Blacks are 6 times more likely to get stopped and searched, but are also 6 times more likely to have committed crimes based on police figures and are over represented by a factor of 6-7 in prison.

All of This clearly points to a higher propensity to commit crime.

So in an area like London with over 50% of violent street prime, robberies, mugging, stabbing, shooting etc are done by blacks, although only making up about 12% of population, who should the police be stopping and searching?

It stands to reason that blacks carrying out disproportionately more crime will be getting stopped and searched.

If a crime is committed by a young black man, the police will be investigating young black men in that area.

What bit of This do you hard of thinking fail to understand?

by Irn Bru Fri May 02, 2014 7:54 pm

Didge wrote:Is it high black crime though when whites do not get arrested, or even stopped, because your views to an area high in crime are again based on poor view points and stats?

Holy crap on a cracker, now again answer the question

Save me reading back to catch up Didge but has Tommy came up with any biological evidence yet that it is the colour of someone's skin that determines the criminal behaviour of a person?

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:05 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:Is it high black crime though when whites do not get arrested, or even stopped, because your views to an area high in crime are again based on poor view points and stats?

Holy crap on a cracker, now again answer the question

Save me reading back to catch up Didge but has Tommy came up with any biological evidence yet that it is the colour of someone's skin that determines the criminal behaviour of a person?

Hi Irn

Lots of avoidance and excuses not to answer, but happy to keep it going untill he does, because i won't quit.

Makes it more fun when you know you have a poster not only by the balls, but the strings above their head.

lol!

by Irn Bru Fri May 02, 2014 8:09 pm

Didge wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:Is it high black crime though when whites do not get arrested, or even stopped, because your views to an area high in crime are again based on poor view points and stats?

Holy crap on a cracker, now again answer the question

Save me reading back to catch up Didge but has Tommy came up with any biological evidence yet that it is the colour of someone's skin that determines the criminal behaviour of a person?

Hi Irn

Lots of avoidance and excuses not to answer, but happy to keep it going untill he does, because i won't quit.

Makes it more fun when you know you have a poster not only by the balls, but the strings above their head.

Thought so. Thanks for the update Didge.

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:11 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Didge wrote:

Hi Irn

Lots of avoidance and excuses not to answer, but happy to keep it going untill he does, because i won't quit.

Makes it more fun when you know you have a poster not only by the balls, but the strings above their head.

Thought so. Thanks for the update Didge.

No worries mate, not really an update mind, as how manyy posts are we down the line with still no answer? I
it would b nteresting if he had actually engaged in the debate and answered

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 8:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Has there been a scientific biological study into propensity of crime by race.....????
So if not, then why are you asking me to provide something that doesn't exist?????
Purely as a red herring!!!!!
But I'm sure if one did exist, crime rate facts and statistics would be a major part of it!!!!
And I'm surprised you don't care about the high level of black victims from this high level of black crime, you seem more interested in denying it even happens at all!!!
Why is that dodge???

From the telegraph article.....
"...Many of the victims of street crime are black: twice as high a proportion of
the total victims, according to the Met’s figures, as you would expect from
the proportion of black people in London’s population as a whole.
It is not remotely likely that their racism leads these black victims to
mis-identify the people who attack them as black when they are in fact white
– and it is scarcely more plausible to maintain that white victims routinely
mis-identify their attackers as black when they are white.
In the 21st century, the principal grounds on which the Met is accused of
racism is that black men make up a much higher proportion of the people
stopped and searched by police officers than any other ethnic group.
The Equality Commission assumes that such a practice shows that officers must
be covertly racist.
But the disproportionate number of black men identified by victims as
perpetrators demonstrates that racism need not have anything to do with it:
when the victim identifies the assailant as a black male, it is logical,
indeed necessary, for officers to start investigating black suspects.
That may lead them to stop and search black males who are in the vicinity and
who have other characteristics identified by the victim.
Officers from the Met could, of course, stop and search old white women or
middle-aged Asian mothers instead....."
Well?
Black reported for committing crime, who do the police stop and search?
Old Chinese women?

Maybe you should read my reply to dodge's demands for a non existent biological scientific study.....

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 8:46 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Has there been a scientific biological study into propensity of crime by race.....????
So if not, then why are you asking me to provide something that doesn't exist?????
Purely as a red herring!!!!!
But I'm sure if one did exist, crime rate facts and statistics would be a major part of it!!!!
And I'm surprised you don't care about the high level of black victims from this high level of black crime, you seem more interested in denying it even happens at all!!!
Why is that dodge???

From the telegraph article.....
"...Many of the victims of street crime are black: twice as high a proportion of
the total victims, according to the Met’s figures, as you would expect from
the proportion of black people in London’s population as a whole.
It is not remotely likely that their racism leads these black victims to
mis-identify the people who attack them as black when they are in fact white
– and it is scarcely more plausible to maintain that white victims routinely
mis-identify their attackers as black when they are white.
In the 21st century, the principal grounds on which the Met is accused of
racism is that black men make up a much higher proportion of the people
stopped and searched by police officers than any other ethnic group.
The Equality Commission assumes that such a practice shows that officers must
be covertly racist.
But the disproportionate number of black men identified by victims as
perpetrators demonstrates that racism need not have anything to do with it:
when the victim identifies the assailant as a black male, it is logical,
indeed necessary, for officers to start investigating black suspects.
That may lead them to stop and search black males who are in the vicinity and
who have other characteristics identified by the victim.
Officers from the Met could, of course, stop and search old white women or
middle-aged Asian mothers instead....."
Well?
Black reported for committing crime, who do the police stop and search?
Old Chinese women?

Maybe you should read my reply to dodge's demands for a non existent biological scientific study.....

Tommy, you do understand the problem, though; right? You've been trying to link crime with ethnicity when it's been proven that there is no link, something which you haven't been able to refute.

So there must be another reason that minority groups in some areas commit more crimes than members of majority ethnic groups, and you've been shown the evidence on why this is as well.

At the end of the day, your insistence that this has something to do with race (biology) rather than on socioeconomic factors only proves one thing -- you're a racist. Actually, it also proves you're very obstinate Smile

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:47 pm

That is not an answer to my question but yet another avoidance, because all you ar doing is going on about specific crimes yet again, where again even your articles show disparity in the police perusing such crimes, let alone all the stop and search, arrests issues and sentencing

Try again

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 8:50 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Maybe you should read my reply to dodge's demands for a non existent biological scientific study.....

Tommy, you do understand the problem, though; right? You've been trying to link crime with ethnicity when it's been proven that there is no link, something which you haven't been able to refute.

So there must be another reason that minority groups in some areas commit more crimes than members of majority ethnic groups, and you've been shown the evidence on why this is as well.

At the end of the day, your insistence that this has something to do with race (biology) rather than on socioeconomic factors only proves one thing -- you're a racist. Actually, it also proves you're very obstinate

Hi Ben

We all knew that not when he denied a person being British or English, but when he said he had foreign/ethic friends and family, only a racist gives that gimme away.
Thanks though, but with this one you can hit him over the head with countless evidence all the time and he still gets it wrong, most companies would have sacked him not understanding basics

by Tommy Monk Fri May 02, 2014 11:27 pm

All the figures show that blacks are responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime, street crime, robbery, stabbing, shooting etc.

This has been the case for a long long time, not just here but same is seen in other countries, USA, Australia and elsewhere.

Are you denying this is happening?

Or just trying to excuse this statistically provable fact by claiming it is justifiable behaviour for socio-economic reasons?

I could argue that blacks create their own socio-economic problems with a large number having a reluctance or inability to get on and achieve and go to work etc, preferring to sit on benefits and pursue crime for extra money etc...

But regardless of this, the fact remains that the police are there to respond to crime, areas with high number of blacks have a high level of crime, and if the reported crime is overwhelmingly said to be carried out by young black men, then it stands to reason that the police will then be investigating said crimes and will be looking for and overwhelmingly stopping and searching people matching the description given, ie young black men.

Simple cause and effect.

Or would you prefer that in an area where there is high level of violent crime being committed by young black men, the police should not be stopping and searching young black men who match the description, but instead go about stopping and searching old white women?

If there were reports of a hit and run involving a red ford focus, would you be happy if the police were not allowed to stop people driving about in a red ford focus and had to stop every other non related car just for PC reasons for fear of 'unfairly' targeting red ford focus drivers???

I have a lot of respect for the police, they are out there doing a very difficult and dangerous job day after day. They know what they are doing, and their incentive is to find and arrest the bad people and the real criminals, not to waste their time or the time of others by harassing innocent people, and thereby alienating the greater public at large who are key to providing information and helping them get to the real criminals they are after.

Given that blacks are also disproportionately more likely to be the victims of this high level of crime committed by blacks in these areas, don't you think that any restrictions placed on police in pursuing those suspected of crime is an abject failure in ability to investigate generally, and in particular result in a failure for the police's ability to seek justice for the victims of these crimes???

by Guest Fri May 02, 2014 11:30 pm

How many more bloody times. The facts are that Theresa May is angry because they are stopping black people because they are black people, NOT BECAUSE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ANY SUSPICIONS AGAINST THEM.

GOT IT YET?

DENSE OR WHAT!

by Ben Reilly Fri May 02, 2014 11:50 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Maybe you should read my reply to dodge's demands for a non existent biological scientific study.....

Tommy, you do understand the problem, though; right? You've been trying to link crime with ethnicity when it's been proven that there is no link, something which you haven't been able to refute.

So there must be another reason that minority groups in some areas commit more crimes than members of majority ethnic groups, and you've been shown the evidence on why this is as well.

At the end of the day, your insistence that this has something to do with race (biology) rather than on socioeconomic factors only proves one thing -- you're a racist. Actually, it also proves you're very obstinate

Hi Ben

We all knew that not when he denied a person being British or English, but when he said he had foreign/ethic friends and family, only a racist gives that gimme away.
Thanks though, but with this one you can hit him over the head with countless evidence all the time and he still gets it wrong, most companies would have sacked him not understanding basics

Indeed, "some of my best friends are black" is a great way to spot the racist Smile

Stop And Search 'Often Only Happens Because The Person Is Black', Home Secretary Theresa May Says - Page 2 Blackbestfriend

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/index.html

by Tommy Monk Sat May 03, 2014 12:05 am

They are stopping people who match the description responsible for crimes carried out in the local area.
There are areas with very high crime, and with blacks being disproportionately responsible for said crime.
The police have a duty to investigate these crimes, and to stop and search those in the area matching the description.
This is for the benefit of all those in the area, to try to catch those responsible for crime and to make the area safer, and to pursue justice for the victims, again disproportionately black themselves!!!
Not to waste everybody's time or try to harass or alienate the wider public at large who are an integral part of good community relations and key to information gathering overall.
Nobody has answered the question yet.....
If in an area with massively high crime being carried out by young black men, who should the police be stopping and searching????

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 12:09 am

No they are NOT!!!! That is what May is so angry about! Are you that dense. She said so specifically. The words she used were 'without due suspicion', in other words, the police DIDN'T suspect them of anything. Take you brain cell out, wave it about a bit, give it a bit of oxygen and it might actually work for a change.

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 12:10 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

All the figures show that blacks are responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime, street crime, robbery, stabbing, shooting etc.

This has been the case for a long long time, not just here but same is seen in other countries, USA, Australia and elsewhere.

Are you denying this is happening?

Or just trying to excuse this statistically provable fact by claiming it is justifiable behaviour for socio-economic reasons?

I could argue that blacks create their own socio-economic problems with a large number having a reluctance or inability to get on and achieve and go to work etc, preferring to sit on benefits and pursue crime for extra money etc...

But regardless of this, the fact remains that the police are there to respond to crime, areas with high number of blacks have a high level of crime, and if the reported crime is overwhelmingly said to be carried out by young black men, then it stands to reason that the police will then be investigating said crimes and will be looking for and overwhelmingly stopping and searching people matching the description given, ie young black men.

Simple cause and effect.

Or would you prefer that in an area where there is high level of violent crime being committed by young black men, the police should not be stopping and searching young black men who match the description, but instead go about stopping and searching old white women?

If there were reports of a hit and run involving a red ford focus, would you be happy if the police were not allowed to stop people driving about in a red ford focus and had to stop every other non related car just for PC reasons for fear of 'unfairly' targeting red ford focus drivers???

I have a lot of respect for the police, they are out there doing a very difficult and dangerous job day after day. They know what they are doing, and their incentive is to find and arrest the bad people and the real criminals, not to waste their time or the time of others by harassing innocent people, and thereby alienating the greater public at large who are key to providing information and helping them get to the real criminals they are after.

Given that blacks are also disproportionately more likely to be the victims of this high level of crime committed by blacks in these areas, don't you think that any restrictions placed on police in pursuing those suspected of crime is an abject failure in ability to investigate generally, and in particular result in a failure for the police's ability to seek justice for the victims of these crimes???

Glasgow has a higher crime rate than London and there ain't that many blacks involved. Why do you think that is Tommy?

by Tommy Monk Sat May 03, 2014 12:22 am

If that is the case Iron Hoof, then I presume that the local police are targeting those who are responsible and matching description given in crime reports....???

Or is the stopping of those matching description there somehow racist????

Surely you can show us evidence of this stop and search racism there....???

Or is it maybe that young white men are overwhelmingly reportedly carrying out the crimes and it is young white men who are also overwhelmingly being stopped and searched in that area????

Is that a racist stop and search police policy?????

Or are you going to try to argue that most stopped and searched are 'Scottish' is somehow racist????

Joker!!!

Laughing

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 12:30 am

Tommy Monk wrote:If that is the case Iron Hoof, then I presume that the local police are targeting those who are responsible and matching description given in crime reports....???

Or is the stopping of those matching description there somehow racist????

Surely you can show us evidence of this stop and search racism there....???

Or is it maybe that young white men are overwhelmingly reportedly carrying out the crimes and it is young white men who are also overwhelmingly being stopped and searched in that area????

Is that a racist stop and search police policy?????

Or are you going to try to argue that most stopped and searched are 'Scottish' is somehow racist????

Joker!!!

But the police are only supposed to stop people where they believe they have been involved in a crime not on what they look like. The very point that Teresa May is making.

Scots just look like Scots and there is nothing really to explain why the crime rate is higher in Glasgow than it is in London other than it has a high degree of deprivation and poverty levels. That's the real barometer isn't it.

Have another go.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 03, 2014 12:31 am

Would you be arguing that although overwhelming amount of crimes are committed by white scottish people, that more black/asian/other ethnics and women should be stopped instead????
Madness!!!!

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 12:35 am

That does not even compute!

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 12:37 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Would you be arguing that although overwhelming amount of crimes are committed by white scottish people, that more black/asian/other ethnics and women should be stopped instead????
Madness!!!!

No, I believe people should be stopped where there is sufficient grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or about to be not on what they look like.

I already told you that.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 03, 2014 12:55 am

If a crime has been committed and a description of perpetrator has been given, then that would be the basis of police acting in stop and search locally of those matching the description!!!!

This is common sense!!!!

In Glasgow, if most crime is committed by young white men, then surely it is easy for you to prove that police are racist by instead stopping and searching young black men, or old asian men instead????

In London, there is a huge disproportionate level of violent street crime committed by young black men.

So who should the police be stopping and searching???

Take your time.......

Joker!!!!

by Irn Bru Sat May 03, 2014 1:09 am

Tommy Monk wrote:If a crime has been committed and a description of perpetrator has been given, then that would be the basis of police acting in stop and search locally of those matching the description!!!!

This is common sense!!!!

In Glasgow, if most crime is committed by young white men, then surely it is easy for you to prove that police are racist by instead stopping and searching young black men, or old asian men instead????

In London, there is a huge disproportionate level of violent street crime committed by young black men.

So who should the police be stopping and searching???

Take your time.......

Joker!!!!

If someone (not all those) matches the description of someone the police are looking for and they suspect that they have the right person then by all means stop that person. What you are suggesting is that if the suspect is a young black man then they should stop all young black men.

See, that's where you are going wrong and that's the point that Teresa May is making. It's really simple to understand that Tommy.

I'll repeat that the police in Scotland should not be stopping people based on what they look like and it should be based on grounds of reasonable suspicion. That's the bit that you don't get.

So why do you think that crime rates in Glasgow are higher than in London?

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 1:23 am

And after all thatdo I still have an answer to myquestion?

Nope

Not only that he is still ignoring all the other major points.

We know white British commit vastly more crime, of those convicted that is, even though they make 75% of the prison population First problem here which matti has not dealt with or answered, 20% more blacks are sentenced for the same crime than whites, proven racism within the Ministry of Justice. Now because Whites vastly commit more of the same crimes of those actually arrested, which we shall come back to on those numbers also, shows Whites in their tens of thousands get away with being sentenced to prison, first massive disparity. Even if we go by the 20% mark even though it is likely to miles bigger, being the fact whites convicted is 3/4 this figure minimum figure could be anywhere from 12,000 to 30,000, which is massive.
Second point blacks and Asians more likely proven again by facts to be arrested with bias, where whites get off, so we then have taken into account the numbers and again and we go into tens of thousand no doubt the upper end around the hundred thousand mark getting off arrests. To last but not least stop and search, now if we know around over a million crimes is committed a year and whites commit the vast majority and you do not stop and search them as much, it stands to logical sense that many more get away with crime, this figure will be in the hundred thousands through catching someone stop and search. So on every level we can explain the disparity, even with violent crime, becomes many whites are vastly not being stopped and searched, let alone of those who are being arrested and of those arrested, many more get way without going to Jail than blacks. All this lost on a simpleton who after all that can still not provide biological evidence

So again, provide the biological evidence showing races blacks and whites are criminally different in their brains?

Good luck chap

by Tommy Monk Sat May 03, 2014 3:22 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:If a crime has been committed and a description of perpetrator has been given, then that would be the basis of police acting in stop and search locally of those matching the description!!!!
This is common sense!!!!
In Glasgow, if most crime is committed by young white men, then surely it is easy for you to prove that police are racist by instead stopping and searching young black men, or old asian men instead????
In London, there is a huge disproportionate level of violent street crime committed by young black men.
So who should the police be stopping and searching???
Take your time.......
Joker!!!!
If someone (not all those) matches the description of someone the police are looking for and they suspect that they have the right person then by all means stop that person. What you are suggesting is that if the suspect is a young black man then they should stop all young black men.
See, that's where you are going wrong and that's the point that Teresa May is making. It's really simple to understand that Tommy.
I'll repeat that the police in Scotland should not be stopping people based on what they look like and it should be based on grounds of reasonable suspicion. That's the bit that you don't get.
So why do you think that crime rates in Glasgow are higher than in London?

And that is where YOU are going wrong..... I am not advocating ALL are stopped, and that is NOT what is happening!!!

The amount being stopped are higher but proportionate to the areas and crime levels there, the descriptions of the alleged perpetrators being mostly young black men, the types/level of violent crimes involved also require additional policing and a more hands on and direct approach.

I'm still not sure if you lefties are actually; (a) denying the high black crime rates, or (b) admitting it's true but just trying to excuse/justify/accommodate it through your socio-economic waffle???

Please clarify your position on this?

As;
(a) goes against all the available statistical evidence,
(b) regardless of the 'causes' of crime, the admitted high and disproportionate levels of violent crime justifies the level of stop and search going on in these areas.

The police are there as a response to crime and levels, not there to be a nuisance and harass innocent people.

If they weren't there and didn't give a fuck, then people would still be moaning that they were racist, not bothering in those areas 'cos they is black'!!!

I'm sure the victims of crime are happy the police are so active in those high crime areas, and any other decent people would not mind the minor inconvenience of being stopped if they were innocent and it helped the police to find criminals, so it really makes me wonder who all these people are who complain and are so upset with police catching criminals and making the area a better and safer place for everyone....????

Wasn't it labour who said... 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear!'..????

Laughing

Jokers!!!

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 6:32 am

Fucking hilarious, now he cannot answer Irn's questions and ignored the countless reasons why there is disparity or any criminology on the social reasons of crime.
He also states the Police is not to harass innocent people, yet this whole article is on just about that, one moment.

://?roflmao?/:

To answer his his point a, he has had countless reasons on this which has has ignored at every level where whites are not even being arrested for similar crimes to Blacks and the same with sentencing and how even though whites commit vastly more crimes, they are in comparison 28 times less likely to be stopped, that is astounding that there is a massive disparity when they already commit vastly the majority of crime. Matti ignores this at every opportunity and even waits until people go offline to reply, that is the funniest. He also thus ignores many blacks are being targeted for violent crimes, yet we have staggering figures on domestic violence for violent crimes. Now I am not sure if Matti can do the maths, but is he suggesting where we know one in 3 women in this nation are victims they are in mass multiple relationships with black men? Again that would be absurd, when we know the vast majority would be a White partner. This is another area the Police have done little with violent crime, again showing areas where it is clear whites would be as all the evidence presented so far shows are getting away with crimes.

So lets look at this to further prove this:

31% women and 18% men have experienced domestic abuse since
the age of 16 years. This amounts to 5 million women and 2.9 million

In 2011/12, the police reported nearly 800,000 incidents of domestic

Domestic violence conviction rates in the five years to 2011 stood at just 6.5% of incidents reported to police

The police recorded a total of 53,700 sexual offences across England and Wales, 71% of which were rape of serious sexual assault.

In 2011, 2,873 men were prosecuted for rape and 40% (1153) were
convicted

Now we know the Police is not even arresting as many Whites, let alone we know also the massive disparity with convictions, this is proven even more by the poor record as seen on rape and domestic violence.

Now Matti has had boundless evidence and not once has he been able to answer any of the points and now even Irn has his questions ignored.

Irn's question:
I'll repeat that the police in Scotland should not be stopping people based on what they look like and it should be based on grounds of reasonable suspicion. That's the bit that you don't get.
So why do you think that crime rates in Glasgow are higher than in London?

My Question
Show me the biological evidence that Blacks are criminally minded more than whites?

We can wait for you to answer even though you avoid every time and cannot thus debate

by Ben Reilly Sat May 03, 2014 6:34 am

Tommy, what you dismiss as waffle, we LWers call "complexity." Don't bother trying to understand it, as it's at a level you'll probably never mentally ascend to. ::D::

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 6:36 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Tommy, what you dismiss as waffle, we LWers call "complexity." Don't bother trying to understand it, as it's at a level you'll probably never mentally ascend to. ::D::

The thing is that view he has goes out of the window Ben because I am RW and this also has come from a Tory led Government on stating that the Police are targeting people due to skin colour, so even that point goes out the window for poor Matti.
You should start a thread on the Moon landings, he thinks they did not happen

lol!

by Ben Reilly Sat May 03, 2014 6:42 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Tommy, what you dismiss as waffle, we LWers call "complexity." Don't bother trying to understand it, as it's at a level you'll probably never mentally ascend to. ::D::

The thing is that view he has goes out of the window Ben because I am RW and this also has come from a Tory led Government on stating that the Police are targeting people due to skin colour, so even that point goes out the window for poor Matti.
You should start a thread on the Moon landings, he thinks they did not happen

Holy shit! Smile

You, Didge, are one the people I think of first to remind myself that groups shouldn't be lumped together artificially. We're pissing off a lot of hateful people in the process, guess that means we're doing something right!

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 6:49 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Didge wrote:

The thing is that view he has goes out of the window Ben because I am RW and this also has come from a Tory led Government on stating that the Police are targeting people due to skin colour, so even that point goes out the window for poor Matti.
You should start a thread on the Moon landings, he thinks they did not happen

Holy shit!

You, Didge, are one the people I think of first to remind myself that groups shouldn't be lumped together artificially. We're pissing off a lot of hateful people in the process, guess that means we're doing something right!

No worries Ben and understand.
This does get boring though when he constantly avoids many points and fails to answer question, amusing as it is!

::D::

by Sponsored content