Notting hill carnival

[Penelope]

10 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

It certainly does. The cure can't be worse than the disease!

I meant the 'culure' of those likely to riot, just like when Duggan was shot.

[old man]

11 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Absolutely, you have to use a mixture of common sense, but crucially there must be some information/intelligence to search someone. To just randomly search people based on their age or colour would surely be a breach of the principles policing is based on. 

Mm, the use of common sense and intelligence is a heady one?

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Then the stabbings will continue and quite possibly increase as we can't offend the most likely part of society by searching them more than any other part?

 

What if they, (the Police) checked EVERYBODY?

No, thank you.

[Dave-G]

11 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Absolutely, you have to use a mixture of common sense, but crucially there must be some information/intelligence to search someone. To just randomly search people based on their age or colour would surely be a breach of the principles policing is based on. 

I suggest it is common sense to search anyone hiding their face to avoid camera I/D with a pulled up hood regardless of colour as that is actual or wannabe gangsta dress code, That the majority of those doing so will be black is their own dang fault - and for the benefit of the huge majority of the population that don't hide their faces or deliberately dress like louts.

[12gauge82]

44 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

I suggest it is common sense to search anyone hiding their face to avoid camera I/D with a pulled up hood regardless of colour as that is actual or wannabe gangsta dress code, That the majority of those doing so will be black is their own dang fault - and for the benefit of the huge majority of the population that don't hide their faces or deliberately dress like louts.

So I take it your an advocate of ai monitoring of everyone, Id cards ect? 

[Gordon R]

Quote

I'm sure that's how a law abiding black man would feel who was repeatedly stopped and searched for nothing more than how he looked. I'm sure those on here advocating for it would feel differently if it was them that were targeted. 

When my youngest was about 18, his car was stopped quite a few times in a very short space of time. As he tired of this I asked the Police why this was. Despite the fact that they should not have been talking to me about him, I did mention I wrote excellent complaints. I was told it was because he was wearing a baseball cap.

I pointed this out to my son, who thought he ought to be able to wear his baseball cap (on backwards). Aside from his fashion stupidity, I told him to carry on and carry on getting stopped. He stopped wearing his cap and the problem ceased.

If people insist on wearing dark hoodies, they shouldn't complain when they are labelled suspicious.

[Mungler]

33 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So I take it your an advocate of ai monitoring of everyone, Id cards ect? 

It’s an arrestable offence not to give your name / details to a police officer when asked. The whole of the Europe (loved by so many) has mandatory ID cards.

The world has moved on. ID cards are yesterday’s tech anyway and the modern criminal in the UK spins round fraud (voter, benefit, financial) and general deception. Needs now must.

Back to stop and search; where we are now is Khan has only allowed stop and search based on specific police intelligence. This does not include stopping someone because they look suspect. My view, target the key demographic and particularly anyone looking suspicious or seeking to conceal their identity. More of what we have won’t work for the future, when it’s not working now - that much should be obvious.

7th or 8th time of asking - what’s the alternative?

The stats show that old fashioned stop and search (without any red tape or the need to balance searches but making sure the correct quota of white old ladies also got searched) worked but of course the hand wringers didn’t like the notion of using the stats (aka evidence) to target a particular group.

 

[Mice!]

9 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

The point I'm making is, we can't destroy the foundations policing is built on, which is policing by consent. Infringement of rights by stop search not backed by intelligence would depart from the norms of UK policing and would be a move towards a police state, not to mention be unfair on those it targeted. 

What more intelligence do you need, the numbers show that black youths are carrying knives, especially at events like NH, and the numbers show its these same black youths that are stabbing each other, its been mentioned throughout the thread just how many stabbings there have been.

But we can't stop the event,  despite the massive disruption,  police injuries,  stabbings and robberies every year as that would upset people, you don't want the police to target the very group responsible and most at risk of knife crime, because that would upset them??

We are no where near a police state, I'd love to see the likes of the BBC do a poll in the areas most affected with stabbings and knife crime, would you except random stop and search,  hoping it reduced the cases, or be happy for the police to just ignore it, because that seems to be the options at the moment. 

As for people, normally teenagers and young adults wandering the streets and parks with hoods up, clearly trying to hide their faces, I've no issues with that, it's just what they do, but when your going to an event,  into the shops you should expect to have to put the hood down.

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

It's not about offend, it's about sticking to the principles uk policing and law is built on. Start bonfiring them and we're on a very slippery slope towards a police state.

Mmmm... you dont think were ALREADY on the police state path, recent events have shown us that the new government is more than prepared to attack certain demographics, and hand out stiff sentences for very insignificant 'thought crimes'
In fact, theyve gone so far as to early release hardened criminals, so there is room for those that post inflammatory content on social media.

And it IS about offending people, certain demographics are more likely to commit certain crimes, thats an inescapable fact, yet you believe if there were more searches conducted on this demographic this could lead to unrest ? So does this not mean that this section of society is more prone to violence ?
Obviously we cant tar everyone of a certain race, religion or nationality with the same brush, but we can take targeted  precautions for everyones security, or we wouldnt be taking security seriously.
If 10 caravans worth of gypsies rolled up 100 yards away from your house, you would probably take some kind of precautions to protect your property would you not ? Would you be bothered if said travelling 'folk' got offended by that ?
Ill go back to the airport security analogy, they dont differentiate between Joe public and the demographic most likely to hijack/blow up a plane, or do they ?
They simply cant be SEEN to profile a passenger, and its most likely the police already do this with carnival attendees, the number of arrests for weapons confirms this.
When you have 10,000 testosterone and drug fuelled mini gangstas mingling with the largely peaceful crowd, its probably a pointless exercise searching a middle aged couple, or a family with kids, no matter what colour they are.
Ill say it again, are we more scared of offending minorities, than the potential and actual crimes minorities commit ?
The grooming gang scandal, and many other incidents, proved that largely, yes we are.

[Dave-G]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

So I take it your an advocate of ai monitoring of everyone, Id cards ect? 

You seem to like twisting words...

[Mice!]

40 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

its probably a pointless exercise searching a middle aged couple, or a family with kids, no matter what colour they are.
Ill say it again, are we more scared of offending minorities, than the potential and actual crimes minorities commit ?
The grooming gang scandal, and many other incidents, proved that largely, yes we are

It's not even just minorities,  it's often just non white in General, if it was white males, aged 16-24 that were the main causes of knife crime it would be getting handled in a totally different way.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

What more intelligence do you need, the numbers show that black youths are carrying knives, especially at events like NH, and the numbers show its these same black youths that are stabbing each other, its been mentioned throughout the thread just how many stabbings there have been.

But we can't stop the event,  despite the massive disruption,  police injuries,  stabbings and robberies every year as that would upset people, you don't want the police to target the very group responsible and most at risk of knife crime, because that would upset them??

We are no where near a police state, I'd love to see the likes of the BBC do a poll in the areas most affected with stabbings and knife crime, would you except random stop and search,  hoping it reduced the cases, or be happy for the police to just ignore it, because that seems to be the options at the moment. 

As for people, normally teenagers and young adults wandering the streets and parks with hoods up, clearly trying to hide their faces, I've no issues with that, it's just what they do, but when your going to an event,  into the shops you should expect to have to put the hood down.

Well put.

And again, we either carry on as we are, or…. what? 

What we need is another BS headline grabbing knife crime initiative - like banning knife sales to under 21 in Robert Dyas, knife bins and maybe someone like Gary Lineker saying ‘can’t we all just get along?’. 

Perhaps a strong poem or two or perhaps some performative art will solve it?

 

1 minute ago, Mice! said:

It's not even just minorities,  it's often just non white in General, if it was white males, aged 16-24 that were the main causes of knife crime it would be getting handled in a totally different way.

Oh you know it.

This whole topic is two tier policing in full effect.

47 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Mmmm... you dont think were ALREADY on the police state path, recent events have shown us that the new government is more than prepared to attack certain demographics, and hand out stiff sentences for very insignificant 'thought crimes'
In fact, theyve gone so far as to early release hardened criminals, so there is room for those that post inflammatory content on social media.

And it IS about offending people, certain demographics are more likely to commit certain crimes, thats an inescapable fact, yet you believe if there were more searches conducted on this demographic this could lead to unrest ? So does this not mean that this section of society is more prone to violence ?
Obviously we cant tar everyone of a certain race, religion or nationality with the same brush, but we can take targeted  precautions for everyones security, or we wouldnt be taking security seriously.
If 10 caravans worth of gypsies rolled up 100 yards away from your house, you would probably take some kind of precautions to protect your property would you not ? Would you be bothered if said travelling 'folk' got offended by that ?
Ill go back to the airport security analogy, they dont differentiate between Joe public and the demographic most likely to hijack/blow up a plane, or do they ?
They simply cant be SEEN to profile a passenger, and its most likely the police already do this with carnival attendees, the number of arrests for weapons confirms this.
When you have 10,000 testosterone and drug fuelled mini gangstas mingling with the largely peaceful crowd, its probably a pointless exercise searching a middle aged couple, or a family with kids, no matter what colour they are.
Ill say it again, are we more scared of offending minorities, than the potential and actual crimes minorities commit ?
The grooming gang scandal, and many other incidents, proved that largely, yes we are.

Another good post.

[Mice!]

4 minutes ago, Mungler said:

This whole topic is two tier policing in full effect.

It is, but it's not helping those who are most at risk, it makes no sense,  don't make them feel like the police are victimising them, just let the stabbings continue 😥😥

4 minutes ago, Mungler said:

maybe someone like Gary Lineker saying ‘can’t we all just get along?’. 

Maybe we should get footballers going down on one knee against knife crime 🙄🙄

[Mungler]

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Maybe we should get footballers going down on one knee against knife crime 🙄🙄

Indeed, if only just virtue signalling by the privileged or holding and broadcasting a higher status opinion could fight knife crime…

Incidentally, if anyone wants to know what to do about knife crime ask a 20+ year serving police officer. 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Perhaps a strong poem or two or perhaps some performative art will solve it?

Or some BBC 'drama' that epitomises the 'struggle' of young black kids on the streets, as they combat racism and other black gangs, as they struggle for dominance, using knives and guns ?
Not that we want to glorify or encourage such behaviour of course, it just is what it is blud.

The 'hero' will be particularly ruthless, 'taking out' his enemies, on some mission of vengeful retribution, probably because one of them dissed his mum, or robbed his drugs while he was doing time for a crime he definitely did commit.
It will need a strong drill soundtrack, with lyrics that involve 'hoes' and killing people, while getting rich selling crack.
The message will be something along the lines of, 'Dont deal drugs and stab people' which will be lost among the glorification of such.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

The BLOODY APOLOGIST's are taking over...................

[12gauge82]

4 hours ago, Mungler said:

It’s an arrestable offence not to give your name / details to a police officer when asked. The whole of the Europe (loved by so many) has mandatory ID cards.

The world has moved on. ID cards are yesterday’s tech anyway and the modern criminal in the UK spins round fraud (voter, benefit, financial) and general deception. Needs now must.

Back to stop and search; where we are now is Khan has only allowed stop and search based on specific police intelligence. This does not include stopping someone because they look suspect. My view, target the key demographic and particularly anyone looking suspicious or seeking to conceal their identity. More of what we have won’t work for the future, when it’s not working now - that much should be obvious.

7th or 8th time of asking - what’s the alternative?

The stats show that old fashioned stop and search (without any red tape or the need to balance searches but making sure the correct quota of white old ladies also got searched) worked but of course the hand wringers didn’t like the notion of using the stats (aka evidence) to target a particular group.

 

Nonsense, only if your suspected of an offence which comes back to having intelligence led action by the police. You seem to be calling for a police state. 

[welsh1]

4 hours ago, Mungler said:

It’s an arrestable offence not to give your name / details to a police officer when asked. The whole of the Europe (loved by so many) has mandatory ID cards.

 

 

It is not an arrestable offence not to give your details when asked, but a police officer could arrest you to obtain your details if he needed to,he would need good reason to arrest and detain you and a custody Sgt would rip him a new one if the arrest was just because you didn't give your name.

[Mungler]

48 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

It is not an arrestable offence not to give your details when asked, but a police officer could arrest you to obtain your details if he needed to,he would need good reason to arrest and detain you and a custody Sgt would rip him a new one if the arrest was just because you didn't give your name.

If you are being questioned on suspicion of being anti social for example (being the lowest most subjective bar for anything) then if you refuse, you’ll get nicked until they work out who you are.

In the real world, if the police want your details, they’ll get them. Indeed, there’s plenty of times they’ll not like the look of someone, want their details knowing that chances are there’ll be an outstanding warrant.

Again, my mum is unlikely to be pursued for her details or object to giving them.

Attract the attention of the police for whatever reason, refuse to give your details and you’ll end up on a finger print machine one way or another. 

 

52 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Nonsense, only if your suspected of an offence which comes back to having intelligence led action by the police. You seem to be calling for a police state. 

Nope. You seen to be calling for more knife crime. See how that works?

In Europe, beloved by some, there are mandatory ID cards. Is Europe a police state?

Compulsory in 15 European Countries

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area_and_Switzerland

Try to buy ciggies out of a vending machine in Italy, and you’ll need your states ID card. Police state right there 😆

Edited September 2 by Mungler

[welsh1]

4 minutes ago, Mungler said:

If you are being questioned on suspicion of being anti social for example (being the lowest most subjective bar for anything) then if you refuse, you’ll get nicked until they work out who you are.

In the real world, if the police want your details, they’ll get them. Indeed, there’s plenty of times they’ll not like the look of someone, want their details knowing that chances are there’ll be an outstanding warrant.

Again, my mum is unlikely to be pursued for her details or object to giving them.

Attract the attention of the police for whatever reason, refuse to give your details and you’ll end up on a finger print machine one way or another. 

 

Nope. You seen to be calling for more knife crime. See how that works?

In Europe, beloved by some, there are mandatory ID cards. Is Europe a police state?

Now you are changing the goal posts and adding an offence, in that case an officer can use legislation.But you said "It’s an arrestable offence not to give your name / details to a police officer when asked." and that is not the case, an officer may ask you your name but you are under no obligation to give it if you have done nothing wrong and he cannot give you the relevant act he is detaining you under, and under some legislation where they can detain and search you, you still do not have to give your name.

And yes i have on quite a few occassions refused to give an officer my name, never arrested.

[Mungler]

9 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Now you are changing the goal posts and adding an offence, in that case an officer can use legislation.But you said "It’s an arrestable offence not to give your name / details to a police officer when asked." and that is not the case, an officer may ask you your name but you are under no obligation to give it if you have done nothing wrong and he cannot give you the relevant act he is detaining you under, and under some legislation where they can detain and search you, you still do not have to give your name.

And yes i have on quite a few occassions refused to give an officer my name, never arrested.

Fair do’s. I suggest it’s dancing on the head of a pin though.

Just out of interest why were you being asked for your name? I’m guessing it’s bailiff work but can’t understand why you would be asked your name as bailiffs are required to identity themselves?

[Westley]

15 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

If you read back through my posts you'll see I've been very clear about that. 

The point I'm making is, we can't destroy the foundations policing is built on, which is policing by consent. Infringement of rights by stop search not backed by intelligence would depart from the norms of UK policing and would be a move towards a police state, not to mention be unfair on those it targeted. 

I feel the same about non crime hate incident reporting and 2 tier policing to. We can't cherry pick who's rights get stepped on or it's a slippery slope towards a stasi state. 

I seem to recall that those who were most vociferous against 'Stop and Search', were the ones who were most likely to be carrying either drugs or weapons. If that meant they were a person of colour then TOUGH  !

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Now you are changing the goal posts and adding an offence, in that case an officer can use legislation.But you said "It’s an arrestable offence not to give your name / details to a police officer when asked." and that is not the case, an officer may ask you your name but you are under no obligation to give it if you have done nothing wrong and he cannot give you the relevant act he is detaining you under, and under some legislation where they can detain and search you, you still do not have to give your name.

And yes i have on quite a few occassions refused to give an officer my name, never arrested.

Someone who clearly knows there stuff 👍

[12gauge82]

I'd just like to add, I'm in no way some woke, feelings in front of common sense person. 

But I do care about freedom and I don't care whether someone is white, brown, black or purple, but I don't want to see a police state or anybody victimised for being born any particular colour. It goes against what it is to be British and while I accept there are times it would be convenient to be able to search people, it must be done fairly across the board, or we risk descending into a police state. 

[Westley]

So, WHERE is all of this 'intelligence led' information going to come from  ??  I can assure you it will NOT be from local people. It took a substantial amount of money to 'persuade' someone to come forward with information, in a recent shooting murder. 

Edited September 2 by Westley

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, Westley said:

So, WHERE is all of this 'intelligence led' information going to come from  ??  I can assure you it will NOT be from local people. It took a substantial amount of money to 'persuade' someone to come forward with information, in a recent shooting murder. 

You tell me, unless I'm mistaken, I believe your an ex police officer? What would Robert peel say about stop search without any evidence, or Blackstones principle 'it is better that 100 guilty men walk free, than one innocent go to jail!' (or something along those lines).