Planet Rugby Forum

100MileDad wrote:

Petej wrote:

100MileDad wrote:London's current crime stats are horrifying. Good job Sadiq.

To be fair London is about the only place in the UK that didn't see an increase in racist and xenophobic attacks after the Brexit vote. In Gwent for example hate crimes increased by 40% after the Brexit vote.

No wonder, they're all too busy stabbing and throwing acid at each other.

Well Tuesdays can get really tedious otherwise

Police austerity :

http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/21/police-st ... n-6020732/

There is a point but it can be tested.
There is a possible argument that more people of colour get searched which leads to a higher discovery rate of crimes committed by this group, which causes an imbalance in the prison population.

This can be tested in a closed period of time by stopping and searching more white people to level out the colour imbalance.
If at the end of that trial period the number of crimes discoverd does not increase significantly in line with the searches, then this test can be used to justify a higher number of targetted searches.

Leinster in London wrote:There is a point but it can be tested.
There is a possible argument that more people of colour get searched which leads to a higher discovery rate of crimes committed by this group, which causes an imbalance in the prison population.

This can be tested in a closed period of time by stopping and searching more white people to level out the colour imbalance.
If at the end of that trial period the number of crimes discoverd does not increase significantly in line with the searches, then this test can be used to justify a higher number of targetted searches.

I can hear the whining already

Leinster in London wrote:There is a point but it can be tested.
There is a possible argument that more people of colour get searched which leads to a higher discovery rate of crimes committed by this group, which causes an imbalance in the prison population.

This can be tested in a closed period of time by stopping and searching more white people to level out the colour imbalance.
If at the end of that trial period the number of crimes discoverd does not increase significantly in line with the searches, then this test can be used to justify a higher number of targetted searches.

Or just use the demographics of reported crime/hospital admissions/knifing victums etc as the basis for targeting.

Realistically, the Met know who is most likely to be out there and they should be targeted. But to aid fairness, lets start stopping and searching 60yro women as well

Yeah, the Met are well-known for being entirely fair and scrupulous

BlackMac wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

BlackMac wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-4303966 ... xperiences

400 times?
If even vaguely accurate then either the Met is sh*t at preventing crime or it is simple victimisation.

Almost 20 years on from Macpherson and plus ca change.

Sounds horrific, and clearly a huge issue. as is the amount of young black males getting killed by young black males. I know a number of Met officers who have told me that cops generally hate having to search young black males because of the adverse scrutiny it attracts.

Not in any way trying to defend the Met but they have been accurately recording the names of all those stopped and searched for years. Would have been easy to add some substance to the lads claim.

What is an issue is the bullshit reason they give you for stopping you. Its always been burglaries in the area. Even when they stop a group who are suited and booted in the early hours. It's clearly just trawling

No doubt about that. An obsession with politically driven statistic recording. Read the recent issues Police Scotland have had re stop and search of juveniles.

Currently they'd want to lower stop and search for political reasons not do more of it.

Chuckles1188 wrote:Yeah, the Met are well-known for being entirely fair and scrupulous

So that means the premise of targeting the most likely to commit crime and the most likely areas that crime is being committed is wrong?

_fatprop wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Yeah, the Met are well-known for being entirely fair and scrupulous

So that means the premise of targeting the most likely to commit crime and the most likely areas that crime is being committed is wrong?

Unless the group are white football holigans, then of course not.

bimboman wrote:

_fatprop wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Yeah, the Met are well-known for being entirely fair and scrupulous

So that means the premise of targeting the most likely to commit crime and the most likely areas that crime is being committed is wrong?

Unless the group are white football holigans, then of course not.

Or Conservative MPs

Leinster in London wrote:There is a point but it can be tested.
There is a possible argument that more people of colour get searched which leads to a higher discovery rate of crimes committed by this group, which causes an imbalance in the prison population.

This can be tested in a closed period of time by stopping and searching more white people to level out the colour imbalance.
If at the end of that trial period the number of crimes discoverd does not increase significantly in line with the searches, then this test can be used to justify a higher number of targetted searches.

So to correct a perceived infringement upon the civil liberties of one section of society, we remedy by conducting the same abuse upon all? Why not cut out the middle man and simply send an equal proportion of whites directly to jail?!

_fatprop wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Yeah, the Met are well-known for being entirely fair and scrupulous

So that means the premise of targeting the most likely to commit crime and the most likely areas that crime is being committed is wrong?

That being determined by the colour of skin?

The same thought process that led to De Menenez being shot in the head several times.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

_fatprop wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Yeah, the Met are well-known for being entirely fair and scrupulous

So that means the premise of targeting the most likely to commit crime and the most likely areas that crime is being committed is wrong?

That being determined by the colour of skin?

The same thought process that led to De Menenez being shot in the head several times.

Everyone knows he deserved it, as demonstrated by the fact the Met shot him

And clearly based in his skin time.

Sefton wrote:

BlackMac wrote:

Sefton wrote:I hate to agree with WT but it's no coincidence that there is a correlation between crime and Black Mac's presence, never again will I take advantage of his two for one offer down a dark alley, no matter how long he tells me he loved me loads.

Just because I wouldn't kiss on the lips.

A man wants a bit of affection but you wouldn't take that Gregg's pastie from between your yawning crevice

Where he's from that's the girlfriend experience.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

_fatprop wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Yeah, the Met are well-known for being entirely fair and scrupulous

So that means the premise of targeting the most likely to commit crime and the most likely areas that crime is being committed is wrong?

That being determined by the colour of skin?

The same thought process that led to De Menenez being shot in the head several times.

That's a false equalivence. The De Menenez case was a total fudge-up, a stone cold murder by police too strung up by the situation of a terrorist attack and rushed to make an incorrect decision of identification.

Obviously it makes sense police should work on probabilities, identification and elimination where it's required.Including stop and search, which I'd be equally happy if police had to do with with a camera.

100MileDad wrote:London's current crime stats are horrifying. Good job Sadiq.

While Sadiq has been shite, he's partly responsibly only, the years of cutting police before him was bound to take an effect over time.

eldanielfire wrote: Obviously it makes sense police should work on probabilities, identification and elimination where it's required.Including stop and search, which I'd be equally happy if police had to do with with a camera.

So
a) Where does this data get correlated and how are the boundaries of probability defined?
b) Once you've achieved a), where do you find coppers who are not too thick or too prejudiced to be able to correctly expedite the requirements under a)?

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

eldanielfire wrote: Obviously it makes sense police should work on probabilities, identification and elimination where it's required.Including stop and search, which I'd be equally happy if police had to do with with a camera.

So
a) Where does this data get correlated and how are the boundaries of probability defined?
b) Once you've achieved a), where do you find coppers who are not too thick or too prejudiced to be able to correctly expedite the requirements under a)?

FFS, that is just pathetic.

BlackMac wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

eldanielfire wrote: Obviously it makes sense police should work on probabilities, identification and elimination where it's required.Including stop and search, which I'd be equally happy if police had to do with with a camera.

So
a) Where does this data get correlated and how are the boundaries of probability defined?
b) Once you've achieved a), where do you find coppers who are not too thick or too prejudiced to be able to correctly expedite the requirements under a)?

FFS, that is just pathetic.

I missed the "Met" bit out. Sorry.

London stabbing deaths up to 12 this year.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

BlackMac wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

eldanielfire wrote: Obviously it makes sense police should work on probabilities, identification and elimination where it's required.Including stop and search, which I'd be equally happy if police had to do with with a camera.

So
a) Where does this data get correlated and how are the boundaries of probability defined?
b) Once you've achieved a), where do you find coppers who are not too thick or too prejudiced to be able to correctly expedite the requirements under a)?

FFS, that is just pathetic.

I missed the "Met" bit out. Sorry.

Not personally insulted, but lack off intelligence among individual officers is hardly the overriding factor behind this and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young cops on the front line in the Met is any greater than any other part of our society.

It's great to roll out the old stereotypes but people could not be more wrong about modern policing. Diversity is the overwhelming factor nowadays in operational planning, often to the detriment of effectiveness.

bimboman wrote:London stabbing deaths up to 12 this year.

Really??



I thought it would be a lot more.

BlackMac wrote:

bimboman wrote:London stabbing deaths up to 12 this year.

Really??



I thought it would be a lot more.

It still means it will average over 100 mainly young black men dying. It's awful.

This is just stabbing deaths. There's been a shooting or two. London need to take a grip of knife use like Glasgow seems to have some success doing over the past few years.

bimboman wrote:

BlackMac wrote:

bimboman wrote:London stabbing deaths up to 12 this year.

Really??



I thought it would be a lot more.

It still means it will average over 100 mainly young black men dying. It's awful.

This is just stabbing deaths. There's been a shooting or two. London need to take a grip of knife use like Glasgow seems to have some success doing over the past few years.

Prejudicially profiling neds and junkies.

BlackMac wrote:and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young cops on the front line in the Met is any greater than any other part of our society.

It's great to roll out the old stereotypes but people could not be more wrong about modern policing. Diversity is the overwhelming factor nowadays in operational planning, often to the detriment of effectiveness.

Are you serious? Maybe up in the calms of Scotland you missed out on the "institutionalised racism" that has dogged the Met. Still
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... acist.html

And yeah, I get that throwing token ethnics into the role is not the answer and can only reduce effectiveness because
- either you are good enough for the job (any job) or not. Employing people on that criteria demeans them and their class/sector/persuasion/minority/whatever and endangers the rest of us
- ironically, such a policy is only likely to further entrench the position of the run of the mill, inst. racist already there

The correct approach is not in dilution but in education/re-education and elimination.

Lastly, errr yes.... because funnily enough, if you run an institution with a clearly sign posted proclivity, you'll attract members with precisely those leanings. Your statement would make as much sense reading
"and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young members on the front line in the BNP is any greater than any other part of our society"

BlackMac wrote:

bimboman wrote:

BlackMac wrote:

bimboman wrote:London stabbing deaths up to 12 this year.

Really??



I thought it would be a lot more.

It still means it will average over 100 mainly young black men dying. It's awful.

This is just stabbing deaths. There's been a shooting or two. London need to take a grip of knife use like Glasgow seems to have some success doing over the past few years.

Prejudicially profiling neds and junkies.

, whatever they've done , the stats don't lie on he improvements.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

BlackMac wrote:and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young cops on the front line in the Met is any greater than any other part of our society.

It's great to roll out the old stereotypes but people could not be more wrong about modern policing. Diversity is the overwhelming factor nowadays in operational planning, often to the detriment of effectiveness.

Are you serious? Maybe up in the calms of Scotland you missed out on the "institutionalised racism" that has dogged the Met. Still
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... acist.html

And yeah, I get that throwing token ethnics into the role is not the answer and can only reduce effectiveness because
- either you are good enough for the job (any job) or not. Employing people on that criteria demeans them and their class/sector/persuasion/minority/whatever and endangers the rest of us
- ironically, such a policy is only likely to further entrench the position of the run of the mill, inst. racist already there

The correct approach is not in dilution but in education/re-education and elimination.

Lastly, errr yes.... because funny enough, if you run an institution with a clearly sign posted proclivity, you'll attract members with precisely those leanings. Your statement would make as much sense reading
"and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young members on the front line in the BNP is any greater than any other part of our society"

What absolutes nonsense, "my stereo type is better than yours" .

bimboman wrote:
What absolutes nonsense, "my stereo type is better than yours" .

You need to up your (highly predictable) game and recognise that opinion based in well publicised facts can ratify an accompanying stereo-type.

Maybe you need some assistance
- you would have been too young/too sheltered for the 60s-80s when the likes of the SPG would pop out to kick the sh*t out of some niggers or queers for evening entertainment
- you missed out on the whole Stephen Lawrence news in 1993
- you ignored the Macpherson report of 1999
- your TV packed up in 2003 with the Panorama expose "The Secret Policeman" which showed that the Bruche training centre ensured practically every copper came out of it as a racist even if he/she hadn't gone in that way
- and you still hadn't fixed your TV in 2008 when the Panorama follow up "The Secret Policeman Returns" concluded that "even though progress has been made, the problem of racism in the police force is more than skin deep".
- and in 2015 we still had head of the Met accepting that his force may be institutionally racist. He can't even be sure one way or another FFS.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

BlackMac wrote:and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young cops on the front line in the Met is any greater than any other part of our society.

It's great to roll out the old stereotypes but people could not be more wrong about modern policing. Diversity is the overwhelming factor nowadays in operational planning, often to the detriment of effectiveness.

Are you serious? Maybe up in the calms of Scotland you missed out on the "institutionalised racism" that has dogged the Met. Still
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... acist.html

And yeah, I get that throwing token ethnics into the role is not the answer and can only reduce effectiveness because
- either you are good enough for the job (any job) or not. Employing people on that criteria demeans them and their class/sector/persuasion/minority/whatever and endangers the rest of us
- ironically, such a policy is only likely to further entrench the position of the run of the mill, inst. racist already there

The correct approach is not in dilution but in education/re-education and elimination.

Lastly, errr yes.... because funnily enough, if you run an institution with a clearly sign posted proclivity, you'll attract members with precisely those leanings. Your statement would make as much sense reading
"and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young members on the front line in the BNP is any greater than any other part of our society"

You seem to have posted and article saying exactly what I posted. Your last sentence is just absolutely idiotic

BlackMac wrote:Your last sentence is just absolutely idiotic

Perhaps you'd like not to act like the stereo-typical policeman and provide some rationale rather than simply asserting it is so? The days of John Christie, when just because a policeman said it was so made it so, are over for most of us.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

BlackMac wrote:Your last sentence is just absolutely idiotic

Perhaps you'd like not to act like the stereo-typical policeman and provide some rationale rather than simply asserting it is so? The days of John Christie, when just because a policeman said it was so made it so, are over for most of us.

No I am quite happy to leave it at "absolutely idiotic" because that is how everyone else will see it. I might add "horrifically prejudiced" as well.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

bimboman wrote:
What absolutes nonsense, "my stereo type is better than yours" .

You need to up your (highly predictable) game and recognise that opinion based in well publicised facts can ratify an accompanying stereo-type.

Maybe you need some assistance
- you would have been too young/too sheltered for the 60s-80s when the likes of the SPG would pop out to kick the sh*t out of some niggers or queers for evening entertainment
- you missed out on the whole Stephen Lawrence news in 1993
- you ignored the Macpherson report of 1999
- your TV packed up in 2003 with the Panorama expose "The Secret Policeman" which showed that the Bruche training centre ensured practically every copper came out of it as a racist even if he/she hadn't gone in that way
- and you still hadn't fixed your TV in 2008 when the Panorama follow up "The Secret Policeman Returns" concluded that "even though progress has been made, the problem of racism in the police force is more than skin deep".
- and in 2015 we still had head of the Met accepting that his force may be institutionally racist. He can't even be sure one way or another FFS.

I was bought up in East London in the 1970's /80's, your now linking the employment of 100's of thousands of individuals with a couple of terrible incidences (Lawrence btw was good old fashioned bent coppers not racist ones) and three documentaries with their service and you think that means your not stereotyping ?

As I said you've a view of this which you push as and when you can, but it's based in bigotry and certainly doesn't recognise the changes in society in general are reflected in our modern police service.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

bimboman wrote:
What absolutes nonsense, "my stereo type is better than yours" .

You need to up your (highly predictable) game and recognise that opinion based in well publicised facts can ratify an accompanying stereo-type.

Maybe you need some assistance
- you would have been too young/too sheltered for the 60s-80s when the likes of the SPG would pop out to kick the sh*t out of some niggers or queers for evening entertainment
- you missed out on the whole Stephen Lawrence news in 1993
- you ignored the Macpherson report of 1999
- your TV packed up in 2003 with the Panorama expose "The Secret Policeman" which showed that the Bruche training centre ensured practically every copper came out of it as a racist even if he/she hadn't gone in that way
- and you still hadn't fixed your TV in 2008 when the Panorama follow up "The Secret Policeman Returns" concluded that "even though progress has been made, the problem of racism in the police force is more than skin deep".
- and in 2015 we still had head of the Met accepting that his force may be institutionally racist. He can't even be sure one way or another FFS.

If only we could.

BlackMac wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

BlackMac wrote:Your last sentence is just absolutely idiotic

Perhaps you'd like not to act like the stereo-typical policeman and provide some rationale rather than simply asserting it is so? The days of John Christie, when just because a policeman said it was so made it so, are over for most of us.

No I am quite happy to leave it at "absolutely idiotic" because that is how everyone else will see it. I might add "horrifically prejudiced" as well.

I'll go slowly.

Any club or society and many occupations will defeat your original statement (which was "and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young cops on the front line in the Met is any greater than any other part of our society") because the whole purpose is to attract people of similar tendencies (generally because that is a desirable thing to aid the outcome). Hence bimboman is playing Canute with his refuting of stereotypes because being a stereotype (in at least one aspect) is almost a pre-requisite e.g.
- the photographic society will attract people who are greater than the other parts of society at taking pics
- the trainspotters group.......... even more extreme
- nurses: disproportionately caring
- army: disproportionately aggressive
- BMW drivers: disproportionately w*nk*rs (hey bimbo: you don't drive a Beemer, do you? )

And so, the police will never be a normal distribution representation of society on multiple levels
- bravery (or fool hardy) willingness to be endangered
- wanting to parade around in a uniform (yeah not unique: lots of professions that is true of but our benchmark is society)
- and guess what............. when everyone knows of the racist tendencies of the Met.................

And so, the police will never be a normal distribution representation of society on multiple levels
- bravery (or fool hardy) willingness to be endangered
- wanting to parade around in a uniform (yeah not unique: lots of professions that is true of but our benchmark is society)
- and guess what............. when everyone knows of the racist tendencies of the Met.................

F ucking hell , that's as big a leap as we've seen on PR, plus of course as pointed out they'd be massively disappointed day one.

bimboman wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

bimboman wrote:
What absolutes nonsense, "my stereo type is better than yours" .

You need to up your (highly predictable) game and recognise that opinion based in well publicised facts can ratify an accompanying stereo-type.

Maybe you need some assistance
- you would have been too young/too sheltered for the 60s-80s when the likes of the SPG would pop out to kick the sh*t out of some niggers or queers for evening entertainment
- you missed out on the whole Stephen Lawrence news in 1993
- you ignored the Macpherson report of 1999
- your TV packed up in 2003 with the Panorama expose "The Secret Policeman" which showed that the Bruche training centre ensured practically every copper came out of it as a racist even if he/she hadn't gone in that way
- and you still hadn't fixed your TV in 2008 when the Panorama follow up "The Secret Policeman Returns" concluded that "even though progress has been made, the problem of racism in the police force is more than skin deep".
- and in 2015 we still had head of the Met accepting that his force may be institutionally racist. He can't even be sure one way or another FFS.

I was bought up in East London in the 1970's /80's, your now linking the employment of 100's of thousands of individuals with a couple of terrible incidences (Lawrence btw was good old fashioned bent coppers not racist ones) and three documentaries with their service and you think that means your not stereotyping ?

As I said you've a view of this which you push as and when you can, but it's based in bigotry and certainly doesn't recognise the changes in society in general are reflected in our modern police service.

FM. On the one hand you are one of the whiners in regards police understaffing and now you claim the Met has 100's of thousands of officers? Credibility man. Credibility.

And try not to debate ta Keith levels with me. I cited those as some examples. I don't recall stating that it was the entire body of evidence (of which, BTW, you've provided the sum total of zero to back your opinions [they don't yet qualify as arguments]. Talk about double standards).

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

BlackMac wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

BlackMac wrote:Your last sentence is just absolutely idiotic

Perhaps you'd like not to act like the stereo-typical policeman and provide some rationale rather than simply asserting it is so? The days of John Christie, when just because a policeman said it was so made it so, are over for most of us.

No I am quite happy to leave it at "absolutely idiotic" because that is how everyone else will see it. I might add "horrifically prejudiced" as well.

I'll go slowly.

Any club or society and many occupations will defeat your original statement (which was "and does anyone seriously think that prejudice among the young cops on the front line in the Met is any greater than any other part of our society") because the whole purpose is to attract people of similar tendencies (generally because that is a desirable thing to aid the outcome). Hence bimboman is playing Canute with his refuting of stereotypes because being a stereotype (in at least one aspect) is almost a pre-requisite e.g.
- the photographic society will attract people who are greater than the other parts of society at taking pics
- the trainspotters group.......... even more extreme
- nurses: disproportionately caring
- army: disproportionately aggressive
- BMW drivers: disproportionately w*nk*rs (hey bimbo: you don't drive a Beemer, do you? )

And so, the police will never be a normal distribution representation of society on multiple levels
- bravery (or fool hardy) willingness to be endangered
- wanting to parade around in a uniform (yeah not unique: lots of professions that is true of but our benchmark is society)
- and guess what............. when everyone knows of the racist tendencies of the Met.................

No one is saying that there has not been and to an extent still are problems, but you either deliberately fail to accept, or genuinely have no idea of the changes since all the examples you have quoted.

Finally to overlook the other qualities that attract young people to the profession and equate the attraction as similar to why people join the BNP is just disgraceful. I appreciate that I have no experience of the Met but I would actually suggest that the attitude of young officers who have joined over the last 5 to 10 years will be among the most socially diverse and politically aware you will find among any organisation, however what would I know compared to what you can read in the papers and watch on tv.

As I have said the most openly prejudiced person on this thread currently appears to be yourself.

And try not to debate ta Keith levels with me. I cited those as some examples. I don't recall stating that it was the entire body of evidence (of which, BTW, you've provided the sum total of zero to back your opinions [they don't yet qualify as arguments]. Talk about double standards).

Assume you picked your best examples though.

2018.

bimboman wrote:

And try not to debate ta Keith levels with me. I cited those as some examples. I don't recall stating that it was the entire body of evidence (of which, BTW, you've provided the sum total of zero to back your opinions [they don't yet qualify as arguments]. Talk about double standards).

Assume you picked your best examples though.

2018.

They were pretty random from memory in as much as they were the ones I could easily recall (and link to) for the spread of timeframe I was trying to highlight.

OK. 17 January 2018 (since you appear to think something radical will have transpired in 3 years?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42702432

Quick points
1) I'm actually in Black Mac's camp anyway in that tokenism does not work but regardless, the data shows that in no way is policing representative of normal society distribution in the UK.
2) Bimbo wants us to believe there have been significant changes.
"North Yorkshire Police does not have a single female officer from the black community." No change there that I can determine.
3)

I know Leics very well and although Leicester itself is not the whole of the County, only about half the population is white whereas the police has a representation of non-whites of 8%. And this table is of the forces with the best representation.