Discussion:
Cressida Dick - Stop and Search
(too old to reply)
Nick
2017-08-09 15:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.

Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---

As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.

A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.

There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.

If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
Jethro_uk
2017-08-09 15:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.

The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.

However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.

So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
Handsome Jack
2017-08-09 16:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.
So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find.
This inference is only correct if the intermediate, unspoken premise
"The police must always end up doing what the Mail Express etc say they
should do" is true. If it is, then that's what we need to change.
Post by Jethro_uk
Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
--
Jack
Ted
2017-08-09 17:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
Police ignoring small amounts of Cannabis is the norm'.
Post by Jethro_uk
However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.
So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
abelard
2017-08-09 17:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:15:31 +0100, Ted
Post by Ted
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
Police ignoring small amounts of Cannabis is the norm'.
but is it the nick?
--
www.abelard.org
Ted
2017-08-09 17:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:15:31 +0100, Ted
Post by Ted
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
Police ignoring small amounts of Cannabis is the norm'.
but is it the nick?
In the 60s it was a three way split whether they put it back in your
pocket, took it for their own use or nicked you!
Nick
2017-08-09 21:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
Obvious to me, obvious to you. I don't know about you but I wouldn't
classify myself as super smart so it should have occurred to at least
one of Dick's advisers and it should have occurred to the person
interviewing her. No wonder the young have lost respect for the MSM.
Post by Jethro_uk
However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.
I don't buy that. I think drugs have lost their demon status.

I suspect it is more that the officers feel they need to have a
justification for stopping someone. Something like performance metrics.
Somewhere the logic goes that if they find drugs the speculative stop
and search is justifiable and hence the community should accept it.

All it really needs is for someone with a brain to intervene.
Post by Jethro_uk
So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
JNugent
2017-08-11 12:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.
So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
I know what you mean.

I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law on
illegal drug possession.
Incubus
2017-08-11 13:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.
So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
I know what you mean.
I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law on
illegal drug possession.
:)

It is strange that they are instructed to turn a blind eye to it.
What's the point of having laws if they aren't enforced?
JNugent
2017-08-11 14:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.
So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
I know what you mean.
I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law on
illegal drug possession.
:)
It is strange that they are instructed to turn a blind eye to it. What's
the point of having laws if they aren't enforced?
Exactly.

I would be content to see every - even quite minor - infraction punished
with a custodial sentence, no matter how brief it may be in respect of
possession of a "personal use" amount (for a first offence, at least).

It isn't something you can easily do inadvertently, like doing 33mph.
abelard
2017-08-11 14:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Jethro_uk
Post by Nick
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime
I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community
if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
The problem is devil and deep blue sea.
The *best* approach would be to only charge people stopped with
possession of a knife, and leave all else alone.
However, you can already hear the hysterics of the Mail, Express etc, if
it were to be revealed that police were not charging people found with
(for example) a small amount of cannabis as a result of a search for a
knife.
So the police would end up having to charge people for everything they
find. Be it a knife, acid, or a spliff. Thus leading to no one trusting
the police (again).
I know what you mean.
I have learned not to trust the police to properly enforce the law on
illegal drug possession.
:)
It is strange that they are instructed to turn a blind eye to it. What's
the point of having laws if they aren't enforced?
Exactly.
I would be content to see every - even quite minor - infraction punished
with a custodial sentence, no matter how brief it may be in respect of
possession of a "personal use" amount (for a first offence, at least).
It isn't something you can easily do inadvertently, like doing 33mph.
motorist tend to have money to collar...

druggies only cost money for board and lodging...

government has its priorities
--
www.abelard.org
Ted
2017-08-09 16:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not
doing that. It has no place in modern policing.

No, not much ...
Mike
2017-08-09 17:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.
There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
Black bastards are 6 times more likely to be into violent crime.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-09 19:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.

If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.

If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found.

This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect. There is one overriding reason for this. There is no point in an officer searching anyone who he does not believe to be suspicious. All that does is create anger and antipathy in subjects and can only yield nothing of note.
Post by Nick
A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.
There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
Carrying drugs is just as illegal as carrying a knife. In fact there is a large number of items that one should not be carrying. Going equipped for house breaking is one group. In possession of stolen property is another,

All kinds of objects substances and items in one's possession can bring one into conflict with the law.

There is no tolerable limit of street narcotics that can be carried with impunity. However, how you will be treated when something is found will differ. If you are found with anything that can clearly be construed as a weapon without reasonable cause, you most certainly will be arrested. It will be a court that will be the final arbiter as to your intent n possessing such an object.

Similarly if you are found with a large quantity of drugs you again will be arrested. However,
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-09 19:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.
If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.
If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found.
This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect. There is one overriding reason for this. There is no point in an officer searching anyone who he does not believe to be suspicious. All that does is create anger and antipathy in subjects and can only yield nothing of note.
Post by Nick
A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.
There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
Carrying drugs is just as illegal as carrying a knife. In fact there is a large number of items that one should not be carrying. Going equipped for house breaking is one group. In possession of stolen property is another,
All kinds of objects substances and items in one's possession can bring one into conflict with the law.
There is no tolerable limit of street narcotics that can be carried with impunity. However, how you will be treated when something is found will differ. If you are found with anything that can clearly be construed as a weapon without reasonable cause, you most certainly will be arrested. It will be a court that will be the final arbiter as to your intent n possessing such an object.
Similarly if you are found with a large quantity of drugs you again will be arrested. However,
(Whoops! Sorry - try again)}
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Similarly if you are found with a large quantity of drugs you again will be arrested on suspicion of dealing . However, if the amount found is small and relatively benign, e.g. a small bag of cannabis, then you might get away with a verbal warning or issued with a street penalty which means you receive a more formal caution and are required to pay a financial penalty within a specified time. If you have already received a street warning in the recent past then you will be arrested. There is no permissible amount of prohibited substance the law allows you to carry.
Nick
2017-08-10 12:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.
If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.
If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >
This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.
It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but there
doesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it implies
non-discrimination.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-10 13:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.
If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.
If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >
This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.
It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but there
doesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it implies
non-discrimination.
of course it does and it is a question of statistics rather than logic. If a certain %ge of a group behave in a certain way and then the group is divided into two sub-groups on the basis of some criterion or another and the same %ge of each sub-group behaves in the same way then this shows that the criterion used to select the sub-groups represents a non causal factor. Otherwise, the criterion used represent a causal factor at work.

Think of a die being thrown. If it fall upon six say ten times in a row then that is an indication that the die is somehow loaded.
Nick
2017-08-10 13:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Nick
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.
If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.
If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >
This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.
It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but there
doesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it implies
non-discrimination.
of course it does and it is a question of statistics rather than logic. If a certain %ge of a group behave in a certain way and then the group is divided into two sub-groups on the basis of some criterion or another and the same %ge of each sub-group behaves in the same way then this shows that the criterion used to select the sub-groups represents a non causal factor. Otherwise, the criterion used represent a causal factor at work.
Causal factor? Causal of what. You are talking bollocks.

The %ge of black people stopped who are black is, ummm let me think,
just a moment, yes, yes... I got it. It is 100%.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Think of a die being thrown. If it fall upon six say ten times in a row then that is an indication that the die is somehow loaded.
Yes imagine there is a coin and two plates. One plate is Ice cream and
the other is shit. People flip the coin and then choose to eat from one
of the plates. On average the people throw heads 50% of the time
regardless of what plate they eat from.

According to Mel statistics this means they are just as likely to eat
shit as ice cream.

That's right isn't it?
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-11 06:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Nick
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
Well I can't see why! It seems crystal clear to me.
If the entire body of suspects subjected to stop and search then a certain proportion will yield a positive result i.e. will be found to be carrying something they shouldn't be.
If the entire group were divided in to sub-groups (say black, white, brown, youth, adult etc.) and the results re-scrutinised then it would be found that exactly (more or less) the same proportion within any of these sub-groups will be found. >
This is taken as evidence that the process of selecting candidates for a search is non-discriminatory in every respect.
It might be presented as such to deceive the feeble minded but there
doesn't seem to be any logical reason to believe it implies
non-discrimination.
of course it does and it is a question of statistics rather than logic. If a certain %ge of a group behave in a certain way and then the group is divided into two sub-groups on the basis of some criterion or another and the same %ge of each sub-group behaves in the same way then this shows that the criterion used to select the sub-groups represents a non causal factor. Otherwise, the criterion used represent a causal factor at work.
Causal factor? Causal of what. You are talking bollocks.
The %ge of black people stopped who are black is, ummm let me think,
just a moment, yes, yes... I got it. It is 100%.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Think of a die being thrown. If it fall upon six say ten times in a row then that is an indication that the die is somehow loaded.
Yes imagine there is a coin and two plates. One plate is Ice cream and
the other is shit. People flip the coin and then choose to eat from one
of the plates. On average the people throw heads 50% of the time
regardless of what plate they eat from.
According to Mel statistics this means they are just as likely to eat
shit as ice cream.
That's right isn't it?
Forget it son!

It's just beyond your comprehension!

Others will understand if they need to. The concept is quite simple.
BurfordTJustice
2017-08-09 20:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well perhaps if they did not commit more crimes than white people they
would not be stopped so much.
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour
of their skin, Dick said: "We need to fight that perception; we are
absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome
rate - one in three positive - is the same whether you are black, white or
whoever you are."
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment.
She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop
people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.
There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs
and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black
youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for
possession of drugs.
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm
sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the
police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 20:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.
There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
There is logic in what she is saying, but she can not really be said to
be proving her point.

Suppose 99% of whites wore a suit and tie, and had a zero chance of
carrying a knife. 1% of whites wore backward baseball caps, and had a
50% chance of carrying a knife. And suppose 99% of blacks wore backward
baseball caps, and these also had a 50% chance of carrying a knife. The
1% of blacks who wore suits had a negligible chance of carrying a knife.
So the police ignore race and search everyone wearing a baseball cap,
and get a 50% weapon rate in both races. The fact that blacks were being
searched 99 times as often as whites would be caused not by racial
profiling but by clothing profiling.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-09 21:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
There is logic in what she is saying, but she can not really be said to
be proving her point.
Suppose 99% of whites wore a suit and tie, and had a zero chance of
carrying a knife. 1% of whites wore backward baseball caps, and had a
50% chance of carrying a knife. And suppose 99% of blacks wore backward
baseball caps, and these also had a 50% chance of carrying a knife. The
1% of blacks who wore suits had a negligible chance of carrying a knife.
So the police ignore race and search everyone wearing a baseball cap,
and get a 50% weapon rate in both races. The fact that blacks were being
searched 99 times as often as whites would be caused not by racial
profiling but by clothing profiling.
Except that the proportion of positive results in the whole group will be reflected in the proportions found in any sub-group which shows the basic selection criteria for selection for inclusion in any sub-group to be irrelevant.

For example if within the entire group 30% were found to produce positive results and one sub=group consisted of 100 baseball cap wearers and the other 200 non-baseball cap wearers the first sub=group would contain 30 positives (30 in 100) and in the second 60 positives (still 30 in every 100) and so sub-group membership would be irrelevant.
Nick
2017-08-09 21:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
There is logic in what she is saying, but she can not really be said to
be proving her point.
Proving the point, is the point of logic.
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 22:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by Basil Jet
There is logic in what she is saying, but she can not really be said
to be proving her point.
Proving the point, is the point of logic.
There's a massive chasm between provably logical and provably illogical.
She was in that chasm.
Ted
2017-08-09 22:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Asked about concerns that people were being searched because of the colour of their skin, Dick said: “We need to fight that perception; we are absolutely not doing that. It has no place in modern policing. Our outcome rate – one in three positive – is the same whether you are black, white or whoever you are.”
---
As with much of what Cressida Dick says I don't understand this comment. She seems to think it implies something it doesn't.
A high proportion of young people take drugs if the police randomly stop people it is likely that a significant proportion will have drugs on them.
There may be no difference between how many young black people take drugs and how many white people take drugs but if you stop 6 times as many black youths you will end up with 6 times as many black people convicted for possession of drugs.
If she wants to use stop and search as a means of stopping knife crime I'm sure she would be much less likely to alienate the black community if the police actually searched for weapons as opposed to drugs.
She has the right surname.
Byker
2017-08-09 23:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
And with good reason. Black cops are often the most vocal about the
dysfunctional ways of their own people. I’ve heard black officers say the
most "racist" things against their own people, the kind of stuff that a
White policeman could never get away with.

Blacks are so accustomed to contacts from the police, that when an officer
arrives at their doorstep they are rarely surprised by it. A high percentage
of these people are routinely contacted by law enforcement officers, and it’s
not because the cops are "profiling" or "picking" on them either.

Rather, it’s because so many of them are engaged in criminal behavior, or
calling the police to report criminal behavior among their own people. Large
numbers of them are also on parole or county probation, so periodic
"check-ups" by the cops becomes a normal way of life for them...
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
2017-08-10 14:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Figures also show that there is six times as much justification for
stopping black people.
- -





"We CAN hide forever."
- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he will
NEVER prove where he infests or give his real jew name

"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
- Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 - 1896)

"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 did not give a shit. Then they came for me and there
wasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)

Illuc nisi Dei gratia vadam.
- Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe (? - )
The Peeler
2017-08-10 16:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:11:36 -0700, serbian bitch Razovic, the resident
psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, making an ass
of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry'
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Post by Nick
<https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/aug/09/amber-rudd-backs-met-police-chief-cressida-dick-stop-and-search>
---
Figures show black people are six times more likely than white people to be stopped.
Figures also show that there is six times as much justification for
stopping black people.
Figures show that your posts are at least six times stupider than those of
the stupidest trolls, dumb anal Razovic!
--
bosodeniro to dumb anal Razovic:
"Are you a glutton for abuse or just fucking lonely?"
Message-ID: <a7ee72c3-7388-4040-bc6a-***@googlegroups.com>
Sick old pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron (aka "Ron Jacobson"/etc)
2017-08-11 01:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
A shiteating cowardly nazoid sub-louse PEDO named Andrew "Andrzej"
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
Figures also show that there is six times as much justification for
stopping black people.
This Black person facefucked a really pretty nazoid babe. Watch
and weep, old pedo... LOL!

"Face of German neo-Nazi Party" Sucks Black Dick on Camera
You could not invent this, folks! It's just TOO **FUCKING** GOOD! LOMPO!
http://tinyurl.com/lnscf3m
Loading...