Notting hill carnival

[welsh1]

56 minutes ago, Mungler said:

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?

I do photograpy and industrial was my thing for a while, refinerys or industrial sites would get nervous of a man with a camera and call the police, most officers were laid back and fine and i would comply, but some were on a big ego trip and tried to throw their weight around, they soon learnt that i know about my rights as a photographer in a public place and also what details i had to give them (nil).

These days i do surfing pics, not many police officers on the beach.

[Mungler]

Great photos.

I’ve tried in vain to take even an average photo on my iPhone and always fail.

And yes, I appreciate they weren’t taken with an iPhone. 

Edited September 2 by Mungler

[Westley]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

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). 

I truly believe that Robert Peel would have said "Get out there and DO YOUR JOB" . If that offends a certain section of society, then tough manure !   I was once told, if you don't get complained about, you are not doing your job. I came to realise, just how true that was.

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, Westley said:

I truly believe that Robert Peel would have said "Get out there and DO YOUR JOB" . If that offends a certain section of society, then tough manure !   I was once told, if you don't get complained about, you are not doing your job. I came to realise, just how true that was.

I agree with everything you've said there, but I'm sure he wouldn't say to stop search people based on no evidence other than someone's colour. 

25 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

I do photograpy and industrial was my thing for a while, refinerys or industrial sites would get nervous of a man with a camera and call the police, most officers were laid back and fine and i would comply, but some were on a big ego trip and tried to throw their weight around, they soon learnt that i know about my rights as a photographer in a public place and also what details i had to give them (nil).

These days i do surfing pics, not many police officers on the beach.

Incredible photos. 😮

[old man]

2 hours 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?

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 😆

And possibly IIRC, your DNA being taken which is never removed from the data base?

[Westley]

27 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree with everything you've said there, but I'm sure he wouldn't say to stop search people based on no evidence other than someone's colour. 

 

I remember attending a Race Relations 2 day course. A very nice gentleman put it to the 'class'  that if he was walking down a back street at 2.00am. carrying a black bin bag, he was likely to be stopped/searched because of his colour  I assured him that he would be stopped/searched even if he was sky blue pink, given the circumstances.   🙄

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Westley said:

I remember attending a Race Relations 2 day course. A very nice gentleman put it to the 'class'  that if he was walking down a back street at 2.00am. carrying a black bin bag, he was likely to be stopped/searched because of his colour  I assured him that he would be stopped/searched even if he was sky blue pink, given the circumstances.   🙄

Exactly,  what's in the bag sir? 

I used to get stopped and breathalysed regularly because of the time of night having worked in a pub, it was just one of those things.

Same as getting stopped because your old car doesn't fit the area your out shooting in, quick look in the boot and off you go.

Nothing to hide then there's no problem. 

[Mungler]

10 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree with everything you've said there, but I'm sure he wouldn't say to stop search people based on no evidence other than someone's colour. 

What if someone of a particular gender, in a particular age range when combined with a particular ethnicity and then for a particular offence (say knife crime) was 10x more likely to commit a knife related crime than anyone else?

Would it not be more sensible (and with a better probable outcome) to bother to search that person (based on age, gender, ethnicity) than to search a 65 year old plus white woman?

What if that person was then 20x more likely or 30x more likely? 

Seems like an odd amount of ‘probability’ to ignore and not factor in just not to offend.

We’re waiting for the names of the second tranch of murder charges out of Nottinghill - want to go double or quits on who they’ll be ie non white, male, 16-30?

Serious question, how much are you prepared to bet (financially) on that narrow prediction? You won’t will you, because you know you’ll be handing over money to a charity of my choice. Your not prepared to gamble with your own money on such a high probability outcome but you’ll happily gamble other people’s lives on it for the sake of not offending…

 

 

[12gauge82]

22 minutes ago, Mungler said:

What if someone of a particular gender, in a particular age range when combined with a particular ethnicity and then for a particular offence (say knife crime) was 10x more likely to commit a knife related crime than anyone else?

Would it not be more sensible (and with a better probable outcome) to bother to search that person (based on age, gender, ethnicity) than to search a 65 year old plus white woman?

What if that person was then 20x more likely or 30x more likely? 

Seems like an odd amount of ‘probability’ to ignore and not factor in just not to offend.

We’re waiting for the names of the second tranch of murder charges out of Nottinghill - want to go double or quits on who they’ll be ie non white, male, 16-30?

Serious question, how much are you prepared to bet (financially) on that narrow prediction? You won’t will you, because you know you’ll be handing over money to a charity of my choice. Your not prepared to gamble with your own money on such a high probability outcome but you’ll happily gamble other people’s lives on it for the sake of not offending…

 

 

What your failing to grasp is that's not how policing works. I'd put a wager on the demographics of the perps to, it's pretty likely considering the average person in attendance. 

Like I keep saying, the foundations of policing is built on having a good reason to stop and search someone, for instance I believe (I'm sure Westley could correct me if I'm wrong) they must tell you the grounds of the search, I.e what they're looking for and why they suspect you. It's not enough to say I'm stopping you because your a young, Black, male at a carnival and I say thank god it's not, otherwise I would suggest we no longer live in a free society, but a police state. 

[Mungler]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

What your failing to grasp is that's not how policing works. I'd put a wager on the demographics of the perps to, it's pretty likely considering the average person in attendance. 

Like I keep saying, the foundations of policing is built on having a good reason to stop and search someone, for instance I believe (I'm sure Westley could correct me if I'm wrong) they must tell you the grounds of the search, I.e what they're looking for and why they suspect you. It's not enough to say I'm stopping you because your a young, Black, male at a carnival and I say thank god it's not, otherwise I would suggest we no longer live in a free society, but a police state. 

Alas, more hand wringing nonsense.

All that guff and in total wilful blindness to the stats.

Let’s assume that in a particular post code, factually and statistically (and for whatever reason) young non white males 16-30 were more likely than not to be carrying (ie stop a random non white male in this age group, in that post code and he will be more than 51% likely to be carrying a knife and so for every 10 you stop you will find not less than 5 knives). With all that information and high statistical probability you still wouldn’t countenance old fashioned stop and search based on age, gender and ethnicity?

And for the 9th time of asking, what’s your alternative (mindful that ‘intelligence lead’ stop and search under Khan is what we have now and which is demonstrably not working). 

[Mungler]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'd put a wager on the demographics of the perps to, it's pretty likely considering the average person in attendance. 

Wrong. The breakdown of attendees is linked in this thread.

The probability of all murders being committed by knife, by male, by non white and 16-30?

Want to have a look at the stats again?

What if not just the murders but say 90% plus of the recorded knife crime at Carnival fell into this narrow band?

Do you not see where the data leads?

Edited September 3 by Mungler

[Mice!]

17 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Like I keep saying, the foundations of policing is built on having a good reason to stop and search someone

Group of lads all wearing coats or hoodies with the hoods up heading to a carnival in July/August recent trouble with young males in the area, that's reason enough. 

At present these lads know they'll not get stopped, so they can do as they like.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Simple, don't bother to police it, let them carry and use their knives rather than offend anybody.   

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Alas, more hand wringing nonsense.

All that guff and in total wilful blindness to the stats.

Let’s assume that in a particular post code, factually and statistically (and for whatever reason) young non white males 16-30 were more likely than not to be carrying (ie stop a random non white male in this age group, in that post code and he will be more than 51% likely to be carrying a knife and so for every 10 you stop you will find not less than 5 knives). With all that information and high statistical probability you still wouldn’t countenance old fashioned stop and search based on age, gender and ethnicity?

And for the 9th time of asking, what’s your alternative (mindful that ‘intelligence lead’ stop and search under Khan is what we have now and which is demonstrably not working). 

Far from blindness on my part I think it is your blinkered,limited view focusing on the Notting Hill carnival. We can't chuck the principals of law and order out because it would be convenient to catch criminals at one event. Or else we'd all be effected. Fac/sgc holders could be pulled over every time a police officer passes us driving to check we're complying with firearms legislation, TV licensing could get warrants issued for a search of every home that doesn't have a TV licence, every person walking through a bad area could be stop searched for just about anything. 

Stop search by statistics and no intelligence is not policing by consent, it would be a overeach by government into our freedoms and rights. I think you need to zoom out and see the bigger picture, like you did with covid. 

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

Group of lads all wearing coats or hoodies with the hoods up heading to a carnival in July/August recent trouble with young males in the area, that's reason enough. 

At present these lads know they'll not get stopped, so they can do as they like.

I think the problem is the likes of sadiq khan politicising the issue. Police are likely ignoring genuine intelligence/information led opportunities for stop search for fear of being branded racist. 

 

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Wrong. The breakdown of attendees is linked in this thread.

The probability of all murders being committed by knife, by male, by non white and 16-30?

Want to have a look at the stats again?

What if not just the murders but say 90% plus of the recorded knife crime at Carnival fell into this narrow band?

Do you not see where the data leads?

Do you not see where a police state leads? 

[Mungler]

5 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Stop search by statistics and no intelligence is not policing by consent, it would be a overeach by government into our freedoms and rights. I think you need to zoom out and see the bigger picture, like you did with covid. 

Who says it’s not policing by consent?

Assuming and discounting criminals who aren’t interested in consenting anything the police do (and noting there will be a disproportionately high cross over from this group into any target group), what if the majority thought it was a good idea, and only the narrow band of criminals and non white males aged 16-30 thought it was a bad idea?

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Do you not see where a police state leads? 

You are conflating the statistically (highly) probable with a police state. 

[12gauge82]

10 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Who says it’s not policing by consent?

Assuming and discounting criminals who aren’t interested in consenting anything the police do (and noting there will be a disproportionately high cross over from this group into any target group), what if the majority thought it was a good idea, and only the narrow band of criminals and non white males aged 16-30 thought it was a bad idea?

You are conflating the statistically (highly) probable with a police state. 

Would you be happy with the police able to search anyone at will, your person, your car, your home? Because if your not, it would be wrong to do what your suggesting. 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

[Mice!]

11 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Would you be happy with the police able to search anyone at will, your person, your car, your home? Because if your not, it would be wrong to do what your suggesting. 

I can't imagine anyone is ever happy getting stopped and searched,  it's not about keeping people happy though, it's about keeping them safe, cutting down crime.

If I get pulled over going home tonight and the police want to search my car why would I want to stop them? It could be random, it could be targeted, I'm not sure I could stop them, but then I've no reason to want to stop them, same if I was on the street, random search mate, no problem officer. 

BUT IM NOT CARRYING ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR DOING ANYTHING WRONG 

My house would be different, I'd expect an actual reason if the police wanted to enter my home, but I'm sure if they came knocking on my door then they'd have one, otherwise why would they be there?

[12gauge82]

11 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I can't imagine anyone is ever happy getting stopped and searched,  it's not about keeping people happy though, it's about keeping them safe, cutting down crime.

If I get pulled over going home tonight and the police want to search my car why would I want to stop them? It could be random, it could be targeted, I'm not sure I could stop them, but then I've no reason to want to stop them, same if I was on the street, random search mate, no problem officer. 

BUT IM NOT CARRYING ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR DOING ANYTHING WRONG 

My house would be different, I'd expect an actual reason if the police wanted to enter my home, but I'm sure if they came knocking on my door then they'd have one, otherwise why would they be there?

Being stopped is different to being search, the police can stop anyone driving a motor vehicle and demand documents without any intelligence. Thankfully they cant search you, your vehicle, or your home without good reason. 

What Mungler is calling for, whether he realises it or not, is a change to that. 

[johnphilip]

21 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Being stopped is different to being search, the police can stop anyone driving a motor vehicle and demand documents without any intelligence. Thankfully they cant search you, your vehicle, or your home without good reason. 

What Mungler is calling for, whether he realises it or not, is a change to that. 

They can quickly come up with a reason to search. You personally. 

There is plenty of examples. On YouTube. 

" we have reason. To belive "

Someone matching your description  was seen ......etc 

 

[Dave-G]

16 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree with everything you've said there, but I'm sure he wouldn't say to stop search people based on no evidence other than someone's colour. 

......

I doubt there's ever been a blanket stop and search for absolutely no reason other than skin colour. I suggest there is association, behavior and possibly clothing in the mix.

Take three groups of people....

First, two black blokes walking along the pavement towards the car park having a chat near a supermarket with a cash machine.

Second, three black women waiting at a bus stop near that supermarket with their shopping bags, trolleys and kids.

Third, three black late teens wearing generally dark/bland clothes and hoodies on a sunny day loitering near the cash machine, one playing loud gangsta music on his mobile is known for anti social behavior, by an officer who has been told about some black people outside the supermarket intimidating people.

Which group of black people are most likely to get I/D requests then searched? And which of those groups are more likely to claim they were targeted 'just because we black?

 

 

Edited September 3 by Dave-G

[Rewulf]

6 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

What your failing to grasp is that's not how modern policing works.

Youre right, its more about pandering to minorities, ignoring crimes they commit, and twerking in the street with them.
We are supposed to live in a society where equality is key, where everyone is treated equally.
Yet we are also told, and its written into law, that minorities are a protected status, whether they be LGBTQ, POC/BAME (whatever is fashionable today) even travellers have protected status because they live in caravans, and the highly politicised police force must treat them with kid gloves.
The whole BLM movement awoke a ridiculous 2 tier system of how protests are dealt with, it continued with the Palestinian marches, yet when a right wing demonstration goes ahead, its treated completely differently.
The fear of being labelled racist prevents police work being carried out with any level of equality, and this is your problem of why you dont like the idea of targeted searches for weapons at events like NH.
The police state you worry about, is right now being applied to people posting some pretty tame stuff on social media, as long as they arent a minority, and they seem to have infinite resources to do this.

Minorities rioting because some kids got took into care - nothing to see here , move on.
Non minorities rioting because of a horrific stabbing/murders - Disgusting far right thugs, set up a task force to hunt them down and jail them, and while we are at it , change the law so they know not to do it again.

The optional metal detectors at NH @ 1.20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITZUqFEyLqo

 

[Dave-G]

30 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

......

The optional metal detectors at NH @ 1.20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITZUqFEyLqo

 

Out of all those hundreds of black people to 'target' in that video only one would have caused me to pay more attention to his actions. At 5.55 ish minutes a black guy seemed to be masking up. I'd hang around and see what he's up to if I were plod. 

[Mungler]

6 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Would you be happy with the police able to search anyone at will, your person, your car, your home? Because if your not, it would be wrong to do what your suggesting. 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

First they came for the criminals and the target sector demographic most likely to be filling our prisons, getting stabbed or being stabbed….

Brilliant. Where do I sign up? 

2 hours ago, Dave-G said:

I doubt there's ever been a blanket stop and search for absolutely no reason other than skin colour. I suggest there is association, behavior and possibly clothing in the mix.

Take three groups of people....

First, two black blokes walking along the pavement towards the car park having a chat near a supermarket with a cash machine.

Second, three black women waiting at a bus stop near that supermarket with their shopping bags, trolleys and kids.

Third, three black late teens wearing generally dark/bland clothes and hoodies on a sunny day loitering near the cash machine, one playing loud gangsta music on his mobile is known for anti social behavior, by an officer who has been told about some black people outside the supermarket intimidating people.

Which group of black people are most likely to get I/D requests then searched? And which of those groups are more likely to claim they were targeted 'just because we black?

 

 

Great example. There’s no such thing as a truly random stop and search - it would be pointless unless the officer thought there’d be a result. Limiting the police in their duties isn’t Orwellian police state stuff - we do actually need the police to do certain minimum things and for the law to support them. The pandering and red tape to get a likely lad to turn out his pockets is being blown way out of proportion and context.

I underline that I believe that I am arguing for the obvious and uncomplicated. I don’t give two hoots - I live in a leafy part of the world and if I go into London I’ll leave my watch at home. It’s not until the people affected swallow some home truths and a few bitter pills that anything will change. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

How then do the British Transport Police justify their unannounced knife scanner checks thrown up without warning on Railway Stations across the country?

They usually last about 4 hours and they sit back and watch people try to back away and put EVERYONE from the incoming trains through the scanner. They also keep their Police Dogs handy.

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Youre right, its more about pandering to minorities, ignoring crimes they commit, and twerking in the street with them.
We are supposed to live in a society where equality is key, where everyone is treated equally.
Yet we are also told, and its written into law, that minorities are a protected status, whether they be LGBTQ, POC/BAME (whatever is fashionable today) even travellers have protected status because they live in caravans, and the highly politicised police force must treat them with kid gloves.
The whole BLM movement awoke a ridiculous 2 tier system of how protests are dealt with, it continued with the Palestinian marches, yet when a right wing demonstration goes ahead, its treated completely differently.
The fear of being labelled racist prevents police work being carried out with any level of equality, and this is your problem of why you dont like the idea of targeted searches for weapons at events like NH.
The police state you worry about, is right now being applied to people posting some pretty tame stuff on social media, as long as they arent a minority, and they seem to have infinite resources to do this.

Minorities rioting because some kids got took into care - nothing to see here , move on.
Non minorities rioting because of a horrific stabbing/murders - Disgusting far right thugs, set up a task force to hunt them down and jail them, and while we are at it , change the law so they know not to do it again.

The optional metal detectors at NH @ 1.20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITZUqFEyLqo

 

No I was right the first time, it's not how policing works and isn't part of it's core values. The rest of your gripes are totally justified and I think frustrates the general population also.