|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 12, 2023 19:18:25 GMT
I think most sensible people would agree that stop & search is an extremely valuable tool that police should make a lot more use of. I'm currently listening to a debate on GB News in which the merits of stop & search are being discussed, and when you look at the figs it's a no brainer. It's just been mentioned that 40% of murder victims in London are black, and 61% of those convicted of murder are black. Plus, this week Sir Mark Rowley the Met Commissioner said an increased use of stop & search could cut murders [In London] by a massive 50%. If that's the case, then surely it is incumbent upon the police to carry out more stop & searches regardless of political correctness and outraged lefties who will as ever insist stop & search is racist.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 13, 2023 7:42:41 GMT
Yes it is. Considering that Blacks make up about 25% of the London population it's obvious that they're considerably over-represented in the knife crime figures - both as perpetrators and victims - it's obvious that the police have good reason for stopping more blacks than whites.
The trouble is that the Left, the PC and Blacks will never accept "targeted" policing - they will NEVER accept "profiling". You heard on the GBN program that the black woman (I assume she was black by her voice and attitude - I was listening on radio) said that the police were NOT entitled to target stop and search in areas with high knife crime. She said that it had to be done everywhere. This is utter nonsense. The logical conclusion is that police should be stopping old ladies. My own opinion is that it's time to be using "profiling" (in all its forms) in policing. It should be recognised that blacks are more likely to commit crime - and therefore more likely to be stopped - and that muslims are more likely to be carrying bombs. Like I said at the time it's ridiculous that the Manchester bomber was never stopped and searched before he blew up the Manchester Arena. Political correctness costs the lives of many people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 13, 2023 12:29:50 GMT
I agree with you Steppenwolf, I think most sensible people would. And yes you are correct, the woman you mention was indeed black.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 13, 2023 14:42:14 GMT
UK Police have had the power to stop and search for a long time so long ago Bill Sykes got stopped dozens of times, they missed Fagin , even back then the Police made records of the stop and searches, as they still do to this day
Police powers to carry out stop and search dates back to the Vagrancy Act of 1824. This was the old “SUS”. Under sections 4 and 6 of this law, the police are empowered to stop any person found loitering in a public place on suspicion of intent to commit a cognizable offence. In addition, in London, section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act (1839) allowed MET police officers to stop and search in London, where there was reasonable suspicion that a person was carrying anything stolen or unlawfully obtained. Interestingly, an internal record was kept not only of the searches but also of all stops under these powers. These were recorded divisionally and the figures collated centrally.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 13, 2023 14:48:47 GMT
I think the police can also stop anyone without stating any reason at all. I don't see the problem - provided that they're polite.
But I think there's a broader point here in that we have a massive problem with crime and we do NOT have the numbers of police required to tackle it adequately. That means that policing HAS to be targeted. That's what Rowley is saying. If certain categories of people are more likely to be committing crime than it makes sense to stop these people. That's why blacks get stopped more often - it's because they commit more crime. If they don't like it I suggest they stop committing crime. And it's why the police hardly ever stop old ladies - because they don't tend to commit crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 13, 2023 14:49:32 GMT
UK Police have had the power to stop and search for a long time so long ago Bill Sykes got stopped dozens of times, they missed Fagin , even back then the Police made records of the stop and searches, as they still do to this day Police powers to carry out stop and search dates back to the Vagrancy Act of 1824. This was the old “SUS”. Under sections 4 and 6 of this law, the police are empowered to stop any person found loitering in a public place on suspicion of intent to commit a cognizable offence. In addition, in London, section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act (1839) allowed MET police officers to stop and search in London, where there was reasonable suspicion that a person was carrying anything stolen or unlawfully obtained. Interestingly, an internal record was kept not only of the searches but also of all stops under these powers. These were recorded divisionally and the figures collated centrally. Thing is Handyman, in those days Londonistan wasn't a foreign city run by politically correct minorities who never miss an opportunity to accuse the police and government of being racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 13, 2023 15:19:50 GMT
UK Police have had the power to stop and search for a long time so long ago Bill Sykes got stopped dozens of times, they missed Fagin , even back then the Police made records of the stop and searches, as they still do to this day Police powers to carry out stop and search dates back to the Vagrancy Act of 1824. This was the old “SUS”. Under sections 4 and 6 of this law, the police are empowered to stop any person found loitering in a public place on suspicion of intent to commit a cognizable offence. In addition, in London, section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act (1839) allowed MET police officers to stop and search in London, where there was reasonable suspicion that a person was carrying anything stolen or unlawfully obtained. Interestingly, an internal record was kept not only of the searches but also of all stops under these powers. These were recorded divisionally and the figures collated centrally. Thing is Handyman, in those days Londonistan wasn't a foreign city run by politically correct minorities who never miss an opportunity to accuse the police and government of being racist. Simple making a comment on how far back the Legislations goes now no longer valid but new modern day legislation is on the books, even back then London like any large Port would have had different nationalities living and working London, but no way near the numbers today. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 13, 2023 15:34:07 GMT
I think the police can also stop anyone without stating any reason at all. I don't see the problem - provided that they're polite. But I think there's a broader point here in that we have a massive problem with crime and we do NOT have the numbers of police required to tackle it adequately. That means that policing HAS to be targeted. That's what Rowley is saying. If certain categories of people are more likely to be committing crime than it makes sense to stop these people. That's why blacks get stopped more often - it's because they commit more crime. If they don't like it I suggest they stop committing crime. And it's why the police hardly ever stop old ladies - because they don't tend to commit crime. Disagree they cannot stop you or search you without giving a valid reason they have to comply with the Legislation. www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rightsI agree there is a serious problem on our streets especially in the larger Towns and Cities, as in the old days Police record every stop and search they carry out , not just because of the inevitable complains, but also for intelligence gathering, they listen to what people tell them about what is happening in their street estate, , people ring in the people in No 7 are selling drugs, or its a knocking shop, plus of course paid informants, people who have been arrested give Info to curry favour, plus what the Officers see themselves. Intelligence led Policing |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 13, 2023 19:57:05 GMT
Thing is Handyman, in those days Londonistan wasn't a foreign city run by politically correct minorities who never miss an opportunity to accuse the police and government of being racist. Simple making a comment on how far back the Legislations goes now no longer valid but new modern day legislation is on the books, even back then London like any large Port would have had different nationalities living and working London, but no way near the numbers today. Those sailors didn't arrive in dinghies on the south coast.  |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Jan 14, 2023 8:18:30 GMT
I think the police can also stop anyone without stating any reason at all. I don't see the problem - provided that they're polite. But I think there's a broader point here in that we have a massive problem with crime and we do NOT have the numbers of police required to tackle it adequately. That means that policing HAS to be targeted. That's what Rowley is saying. If certain categories of people are more likely to be committing crime than it makes sense to stop these people. That's why blacks get stopped more often - it's because they commit more crime. If they don't like it I suggest they stop committing crime. And it's why the police hardly ever stop old ladies - because they don't tend to commit crime. That is called racial profiling and it causes more friction between the police and community than anything else. There has to be a stated reason for any stop and search and some kind of actual evidence that the law might have been broken. And not just that your brake light isn't working. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 14, 2023 9:36:48 GMT
I think the police can also stop anyone without stating any reason at all. I don't see the problem - provided that they're polite. But I think there's a broader point here in that we have a massive problem with crime and we do NOT have the numbers of police required to tackle it adequately. That means that policing HAS to be targeted. That's what Rowley is saying. If certain categories of people are more likely to be committing crime than it makes sense to stop these people. That's why blacks get stopped more often - it's because they commit more crime. If they don't like it I suggest they stop committing crime. And it's why the police hardly ever stop old ladies - because they don't tend to commit crime. That is called racial profiling and it causes more friction between the police and community than anything else. There has to be a stated reason for any stop and search and some kind of actual evidence that the law might have been broken. And not just that your brake light isn't working. You mention racial profiling. What would you call it if the police told white people they couldn't join the force because all places for white entrants had been taken? |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jan 14, 2023 9:55:37 GMT
Yes white males trying to join the Police have been rejected because they are white and male in order to select applicants of difference races and women , straight forward positive discrimination they have even set quotas, I do know that none white Police Officers get abused just as much as white Officers and even more so by people of the same colour and ethnicity as they are.
If residents in an area tell their local Police there is a gang of white blokes who sell drugs on the corner every night, the Police will carry observations and stop and search, if they are told or know the blokes are black they will carry out stop and search, when possible, I don't care what ethnicity our Police are I want them to do their job to protect me and mine
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 14, 2023 17:41:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 17:47:25 GMT
Racial profiling is a logical and rational method of policing ffs.
If you are looking out for Yardie members then you wouldn’t be searching white Lithuanians.
The ones who whine about racial profiling should be helping the police to eradicate the social pathogens from their ethnic groups, not trying to stop it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 15, 2023 8:03:27 GMT
I think the police can also stop anyone without stating any reason at all. I don't see the problem - provided that they're polite. But I think there's a broader point here in that we have a massive problem with crime and we do NOT have the numbers of police required to tackle it adequately. That means that policing HAS to be targeted. That's what Rowley is saying. If certain categories of people are more likely to be committing crime than it makes sense to stop these people. That's why blacks get stopped more often - it's because they commit more crime. If they don't like it I suggest they stop committing crime. And it's why the police hardly ever stop old ladies - because they don't tend to commit crime. Disagree they cannot stop you or search you without giving a valid reason they have to comply with the Legislation. www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rightsThis is what it says in your link: " You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that:
serious violence could take place
you’re carrying a weapon or have used one
you’re in a specific location or area" So there are pretty broad grounds for stopping people "without reasonable grounds". |
|
