Re: The vent thread

[Jeanpierre]

In Brussels centre, where you can talk:
- Le Cerceuil
- A La Bécasse
- Toone
- Bon Vieux Temps
At least I enjoy these, for a quiet talk and a good beer. If you want more popular places, St Gorix would be one of those places to be.

[Geneviève]

I stopped listening as soon as he said, "Because I'm black" ... pff please

clearly you dont live in england, or london.

I live in Birmingham, multicultural capital of the UK. He's talking crap.

[Feydor]

Yeah let's just disregard everything said with the brushing comment that it's all just "crap". What evidence do you have to support your claims that it's crap? You can see the evidence of discrimination all over the world, in Russia with non-slavs, France with arabs, and here with blacks. How about you read some reports, studies, to see the numbers for yourself?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/17/stop-and-search-race-figures

Section 60 stop and searches, black people are 26 times more likely to get stopped and searched.
Section 1, 7 times as likely.

For example; "Between 2005/06 and 2008/09 the LSE found the number of Section 60 searches of black people rose by more than 650%."

These numbers come from the Ministry of Justice. If you wish me to PM you the links of these studies, say so.
And perhaps this thread isn't the best for continuing this discussion, I'd be more than happy to take it in PMs, and let angry folk vent their troubles!

[Jeanpierre]

Hm. Hate to be a pain, but who says the cause for that is solely based on racial discrimination?
It could be related to other, not necessarily less troubling and worrying, reasons.

Furthermore.. can you lay down proof (or show me where in that link) that these statistics are a direct consequence of a structured plan to discriminate from higher up?

I'm not trying to claim discrimination doesn't happen. It does. It happens all the damn time. But should I blame my prime minister for making my neighbour a racist?

[Feydor]

Firstly, if we look at it on a non per capita basis, but still understanding that there are less black than white people, you can see the following:
Stops and searches under Police and Criminal Evidence Act
67% white, 14.8% black
Arrests: 80.6% white 7.6% black
You can immediately see the difference there, the fact that 14.8% of blacks are stopped and search compared to actual arrests of 7.6%, whereas it is nearly the opposite for whites. Furthermore, in Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology. p. 83., written by leading criminologists, it is stated that blacks are no more likely than whites to be arrested as a result of stop and searches.

Maybe if blacks caused 26 times more crime than whites, or 7 times, whichever figure you wish to reference, then it would justify the larger number of stop and searches, but this ain't the case.

Regarding your question, I don't have access to police documents, nor have I said it is a structured plan, but the facts are plain and simple, that the discrimination does happen, and this is the issue what should be addressed.

Stop and searches have went wildly out of control, and to get you up to scratch with happenings, "In July, home secretary Theresa May announced that police use of Section 44 counter-terrorism stop-and-search powers, which allowed officers to act without reasonable suspicion, was to be curtailed immediately following a decision from the European Court of Human Rights." It is clear that they have went out of hand, being used flippantly as a catch all by the police, and it's clear that certain minorities are being targetted much much more than whites.

In addition, what are these other less troubling reasons you allude to, JP?

[Jeanpierre]

In addition, what are these other less troubling reasons you allude to, JP?

Well, first of all, I meant "not necessarily less troubling". It could be they have a structured plan to scan certain regions based on criminal activities or regions known to have a higher degree of social economical issues. Those maps could be made, with no regard to skin colour, and yet in practice could prove to have a higher ratio of "coloured people" (or whatever politically correct term you want to stick on it).
Such a reason would be enough to show in your fancy statistics and instil the question why there is a relation between skin colour and such a region. But is it necessarily the result of active discrimination? No. Could be indirect, could be subconscious.. Doesn't mean it should be ignored...

Could you clarify those numbers for me, however. You speak of 80.6% arrests for white people and 7.6% for black people. Are those numbers related to the stop and search, or overall?
In the latter case, there would be basically no strength in the argument that this is discrimination. In the former, this would imply that 80.6% of the stops and searches on white people result in an arrest, where only 7.6% of the stopped and searched blacks get arrested. While that may show there is very poor judgement from the police officers, I'd say the whites are off worse.

And lastly..
"In July, home secretary Theresa May announced that police use of Section 44 counter-terrorism stop-and-search powers, which allowed officers to act without reasonable suspicion, was to be curtailed immediately following a decision from the European Court of Human Rights."
It's clear the law went out of the lines defined by Europe. It's not clear this was (ab)used flippantly. Not saying that can't be the case, but I can't deduce that objectively from this fact, nor can I deduce from this that minorities were being targeted.
Also.. With this law being curtailed.. isn't the problem solved?

[Feydor]

Well, first of all, I meant "not necessarily less troubling". It could be they have a structured plan to scan certain regions based on criminal activities or regions known to have a higher degree of social economical issues. Those maps could be made, with no regard to skin colour, and yet in practice could prove to have a higher ratio of "coloured people" (or whatever politically correct term you want to stick on it).
Such a reason would be enough to show in your fancy statistics and instil the question why there is a relation between skin colour and such a region. But is it necessarily the result of active discrimination? No. Could be indirect, could be subconscious.. Doesn't mean it should be ignored...

Those are all possibilities, but without you and I knowing what plans the police have, it is speculation. However, I do believe you will find this case interesting, involving the Press Complaints Commission (making sure that the press and media act according to law) upholding a complaint against a news writer who claimed that the majority of crime in London is carried out by the African-Carribean community. Data from the Metropolitan Police, who are the police force in London, where many of these riots occured, showed that in that area the majority of crimes were not committed by black people. For example, in categories defined as ‘violence against the person’ and ‘sexual offences’, black people made up 32% of arrests. The news reporter was forced to take the article down.

Could you clarify those numbers for me, however. You speak of 80.6% arrests for white people and 7.6% for black people. Are those numbers related to the stop and search, or overall?
In the latter case, there would be basically no strength in the argument that this is discrimination. In the former, this would imply that 80.6% of the stops and searches on white people result in an arrest, where only 7.6% of the stopped and searched blacks get arrested. While that may show there is very poor judgement from the police officers, I'd say the whites are off worse.

The numbers that I was highlighting are that (remember, this is not per capita, so you have to take in the population into account),14.8% of all stop and searches are done to black people, when only 7.6% of arrests are done to black people, in comparison to the numbers for white people. In regards to the stop and searches which result in arrests, data shows (look up 2008/2009 ministry of justice figures regading race and equality), a black male is no more likely than a white male to be arrested as a result of a stop and search. My point being that they are no more likely, yet they are far more likely to be stopped and searched, which either shows gross inadequacy by the police force in terms of simple logic, or either direct or indirect discrimination (both being equally hurtful to the recipient).

And lastly..
"In July, home secretary Theresa May announced that police use of Section 44 counter-terrorism stop-and-search powers, which allowed officers to act without reasonable suspicion, was to be curtailed immediately following a decision from the European Court of Human Rights."
It's clear the law went out of the lines defined by Europe. It's not clear this was (ab)used flippantly. Not saying that can't be the case, but I can't deduce that objectively from this fact, nor can I deduce from this that minorities were being targeted.
Also.. With this law being curtailed.. isn't the problem solved?

No, perhaps you do not understand the British Law regarding how peace officers can stop and search an individual, not your fault of course. There are many different sections of acts which permit an officer to stop and search someone. Section 44 of the Counter-terrorism act was a recent one, which was curtailed, but there are many more which permit officers to stop and search. Most importantly, Section 60, which as I gave evidence to earlier, Black Males are 26 times as likely to be stopped and searched under.

[Jeanpierre]

The numbers that I was highlighting are that (remember, this is not per capita, so you have to take in the population into account),14.8% of all stop and searches are done to black people, when only 7.6% of arrests are done to black people, in comparison to the numbers for white people. In regards to the stop and searches which result in arrests, data shows (look up 2008/2009 ministry of justice figures regading race and equality), a black male is no more likely than a white male to be arrested as a result of a stop and search. My point being that they are no more likely, yet they are far more likely to be stopped and searched, which either shows gross inadequacy by the police force in terms of simple logic, or either direct or indirect discrimination (both being equally hurtful to the recipient).

You can not, in a statistically correct way, tie your arrests numbers and stop-and-search numbers without further correlated statistical proof. Deductions like that are tempting, but incorrect. According to the same report you referred to, in order to have a justice cap you don't need a disproportionate number relative to the size of the population but to the criminality level of a population. I think that makes sense, but the report entirely dodges that very same thing, giving no measure on criminal activity per ethical group, from what I've seen in it.

According to wiki, the "black" population is about 2% of the population. They hold about 7.6% of the arrests (your number).
The "white" population is 92.14%, holding 80.6% of the arrests.
If we would use the numbers of the prison population, we would have 72.5% for white dudes and 14.9% for black dudes, or 9 times as many as whites, relative to their population number.

Now... The following numbers are equally statistically incorrect since I'm equally making false assumptions about relations between unrelated data.
I could, mathematically, deduce for the "black" population to be 4.34 times as 'prone to arrest' and 9 times as 'prone to be in jail'. Relative to these measures of 'criminality' you are like not likely to find a gap in justice as your stop-and-search ratio lies between 4.34 and 9.
Again, this is statistically false. It just shows that "logic" and statistics don't mix. Statistics either point out something directly, or they don't show it. Any form of deduction is most likely faulty.

Also... I'd be more worried about the disproportionate numbers between arrests and imprisonments.

[Jeanpierre]

Most importantly, Section 60, which as I gave evidence to earlier, Black Males are 26 times as likely to be stopped and searched under.

According to the statistical numbers you gave earlier, the ratio would be 7.6 times

[Jeanpierre]

I'm going to make one more post on this.. heh, sorry

I don't object against the argument of discrimination. The sentiment of being discriminated can be very real and very dangerous. But it is something very hard to prove. Statistics tend to be able to give overviews, but very poor to deduce causes. They can, at best, relate two aspect of a population. But something like discrimination that can be subtle and take many shapes is often very hard to prove with numbers. You are not likely to find numbers to speak for your cause, in fact.

This does not mean discrimination doesn't happen and shouldn't be fought back. To me, it means a more personal and humane way must be found, and we should decrease our dependency on "machinery based number crunching".

[Grufftoof]

I'm going to make one more post on this.. heh, sorry

I don't object against the argument of discrimination. The sentiment of being discriminated can be very real and very dangerous. But it is something very hard to prove. Statistics tend to be able to give overviews, but very poor to deduce causes. They can, at best, relate two aspect of a population. But something like discrimination that can be subtle and take many shapes is often very hard to prove with numbers. You are not likely to find numbers to speak for your cause, in fact.

This does not mean discrimination doesn't happen and shouldn't be fought back. To me, it means a more personal and humane way must be found, and we should decrease our dependency on "machinery based number crunching".

Well said that man. Get me a chair in the café.

[Amaryl]

Or as they say, correlation is not causation.

or in terms of adequately interpreting statistical analysis:

[Feydor]

Most importantly, Section 60, which as I gave evidence to earlier, Black Males are 26 times as likely to be stopped and searched under.

According to the statistical numbers you gave earlier, the ratio would be 7.6 times

"Justice Initiative found that there are 41.6 Section 60 searches for every 1,000 black people, compared with 1.6 for every 1,000 white people – making black people 26.6 times more likely to be stopped and searched"
You must remember as I said, there are different types of stop and searches, Section 60 is one type, Section 1 another, so on so forth.

I'm going to make one more post on this.. heh, sorry

I don't object against the argument of discrimination. The sentiment of being discriminated can be very real and very dangerous. But it is something very hard to prove. Statistics tend to be able to give overviews, but very poor to deduce causes. They can, at best, relate two aspect of a population. But something like discrimination that can be subtle and take many shapes is often very hard to prove with numbers. You are not likely to find numbers to speak for your cause, in fact.

This does not mean discrimination doesn't happen and shouldn't be fought back. To me, it means a more personal and humane way must be found, and we should decrease our dependency on "machinery based number crunching".

I agree, and I think it is one of the greatest troubles in this way: difficult to prove using statistics, but the claims get dismissed without, saying that it's just a load of trash, refusing to move from the status quo, the embedded thought that everything is equal. Hence forth, there will be no formal enquiries into it, no efforts to make sure that people are being treated equally, leading to even more frustration. The community has to be listened to, and if they are, as they have been, that they are discriminated and harrassed, as many sources show, then they should be listened to, which they aren't. Sure, there can be peaceful protests, but when is the last time that has been a news headline, and lead to change?

[Swan Emperor Arenfel]

I really want to enjoy Warcraft, but for some reason when I logged on today all my enthusiasm and drive to either level a new character or roleplay on existing ones was killed stone dead. No clue why, just one of those days maybe?

[Rmuffn]

I really want to enjoy Warcraft, but for some reason when I logged on today all my enthusiasm and drive to either level a new character or roleplay on existing ones was killed stone dead. No clue why, just one of those days maybe?

Had that for a few months now. :p

[Morinth]

Same. Ever since my hand was injured.

[Chase - Esou]

Same. Ever since my hand was injured.

Masturbating?

[Morinth]

Same. Ever since my hand was injured.

Masturbating?

I wish. So much more pleasant to the actual event.

I got eaten by a dog at work. Still a bit of stiffness in one finger.

Spoiler:

[Shaelyssa]

Same. Ever since my hand was injured. :|

Masturbating?

XD

[Chase - Esou]

Same. Ever since my hand was injured.

Masturbating?

I wish. So much more pleasant to the actual event.

I got eaten by a dog at work. Still a bit of stiffness in one finger.

Spoiler:

I actually wasn't thinking that until I read the spoiler!

I've got a dog of my own and they're lovely animals (well, ours is a downright bitch, but still) and I could never think thoughts like that on my innocent own :<

[Morinth]

I love dogs, hence why I work with them. I was saving said dog from being eating by a much larger one. Little thing got scared and bit me. Poor thing was terrified.

[Guest]

I hate dogs : / So much...been scared of them for years. They suck.

[Morinth]

You don't get bad dogs. Only bad owners. Dogs just don't become violent for no reason. Some may not get along with other dogs, but there's generally a reason if they will attack a person. Just like some people hate each other, they won't attack a bloody dog unless they're sick, twisted individuals. A dogs head doesn't work like that.

[Kil'drakor]

They're quite tasty, though.

[Geneviève]

I don't know about that. I think saying you don't get bad dogs is insulting to dogs. If they can't be bad then you're infering they're too stupid to have personality.

Personally I adore dogs, I used to look after trainee guide dogs when I lived with my parents. They've got one at the moment but I haven't been able to see her yet. D:

[Sponsored content]