blacks and asians more prone to being stopped

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And a car thief can fit a car in a bag or their pocket?

Perhaps a car is going a little too far, but the tools to steal a car certainly.

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

ohhh look what I found on the BBC website........

....certainly paints a picture of "victimisation", but not in the area most people expected.

Yes, but you missed this one:

"Increase in overall searches"

Black: 38%
Asian: 36%
White: 17%
Source: Home Office

So rise in the number of searches on Blacks and Asians is *double* what it is for Whites.

Now consider this: "results on ethnicity and religion from the 2001 Census reveal that 87.5 per cent of the population of England and Wales (seven out of eight people) gave their ethnic group as White British." (The total UK population is given as 58.7 million)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2.../ethnicity.asp

Given those proportions, you'd expect 12.5% of terror law stop and searches to be on Black and Asians and others assuming no bias.

Except the total number of TLSS on Blacks and Asians is actually *twenty two percent* of the total number and the amount of searches on those groups is, as I said above, increasing twice as fast as those on Whites.

So lets look at it again, are Asians and blacks the ones that are really being victimised, or is it, the fact they are Asian and black that it makes the news?

Look at the above figures and ask yourself the question again.

I read what had happened, and yes the three links Dr Wadd posted were shocking reading,

I think you actually mean the links I posted...!

To inject a bit of better spirit into this thread, perhaps we should get a late night debate show on Channel 4, with heated debates such as these we'd certainly get the viewers

Originally Posted by dr wadd

To inject a bit of better spirit into this thread, perhaps we should get a late night debate show on Channel 4, with heated debates such as these we'd certainly get the viewers

I Hold no grudges against anyone, graham and myself have crossed words several times, and yet in one thread we even managed to have a bit of a banter.

Yes Graham those figures show an alarming rise in stops and searches of Asians.
So in the area this was reported for, The Met I beleive, What is the perccentage of Asian to whites living in this area?
Do these stops and searches reflect a rise in a certain area for example, in a predominantly Asian are. In the current climate you would expect to see a rise across the board, but as every one here is fully aware these facts and figures may yet turn out to be misleading, It seems to be happening everywhere else.
These figures show an increase, but is it in proportion? I'm admittedly finding it difficult to get the right words but what I am basically saying is, are these figures designed to shock and not lie, or are they 100% honest and indicate what they appear to?

All I am trying to say is that yes, it looks as if the Asians are getting a bit of stick off the police, but what are the police supposed to do? the current climate states that any terrorist threat is extremely likely to come from an asian or muslim source.
The police wouldnt get anywhere by stopping white, apparently non muslim people would they?
Which takes me back to the comment I made originally that it was just common sense, as annoying as it may be for the innocent people stopped and searched.

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Ok then what rights should the police have to uphold the law? their job isnt soley to track down criminals after the event, they are there to prevent crime also.

Yes and I have no problem with them trying to prevent crime *PROVIDED* it is done without abusing anyone's rights!

Perhaps we should give the police the power to stop and search the little scrotes that hang around the shops drinking when under age, stealing cars, committing burglary, and mugging people.

Perhaps we should stop making massive generalisations.

What people fail to understand is that by giving the Police a tough time for doing the job they are affecting others, not just the individual police involved and themselves. What harm is there in being stopped and asked a few questions? Does it cause so much hassle that you cant possibly co-operate without creating a scene?

To paraphrase an argument from elsewhere in this thread: If they don't like the job they should go and work somewhere else...!!! (NB this is *IRONY*!)

The police have a toough enough job as it is, and as far as I am concerned it should be a minor offence to awkward with the police when asked reasonably a few questions.

So you think the Police should waste *even more* time having to deal with anyone who is "awkward"??

It has nothing to do if they think you are guilty of something, the questions are to help them do their job, know who is in a given area so if anything happens they know where they can start looking and eliminating suspects. Its not about your black, we dont like your face, c'mon my son yer nicked.

It's isn't? I suggest you look at the activities of some of the most notorious "Secret Police" forces around the world and the repressive regimes under which they operate and then see how similar they are to what you are suggesting!

I cant understand what this country is coming to when we scream about the lack of coppers on the beat one minute then cry harrassment because they are finally out there doing their bloody job.

Because their job is *NOT* to go out on the beat and demand answers from anyone and everyone about what they're doing and why they're there!!

promptly arrested for drunk and disorderly even though I was quite sober, but had been drinking......thats where I learnt my lesson that its easier to co-operate and help them do their job).

So you *approve* of a system where the Police can abuse their powers simply because they don't like your attitude?

One mans cry for civil liberties may cause umpteen problems for others.

One lost civil liberty can cause *many* more problems for *EVERYONE*!

If the police werent stopping and searching Asians and muslims and there was a huge bomb blast in your town, and it turns out the Muslim extremeists did it, would you be happy the police hadnt done "something" ?

This is a pointless and ludicrous question.

You postulate an attack by a specific group, but present no evidence (because there *is* no evidence) either that a) there *would* be such an attack or b) that the Police stopping and searching Asians and Muslims would have *stopped* such an attack.

You then appear to consider that the possibilty of stopping such a putative attack *justifies* stopping and searching Asians and Muslims, but, again, there is no evidence for this conclusion.

You pile hypothesis on hypothesis and then try to put the burden of proof on "us" to deny it!

If there was a Combat 18 rally in your neighbourhood and you were attacked by skinheads, would you be happy that because of Civil liberties, the police hadnt bothered finding out why all these skin heads were there? After all its not illegal to have a shaved head and wear jeans.

Another ridiculous hypothesis and backed by a ridiculous claim that "because of Civil liberties, the police hadnt bothered finding out why all these skin heads were there".

This is not what Civil Liberties is about, they protect the right of lawful assembly, free speech, freedom to wear whatever you want etc. This doesn't mean that if there were to be such a rally the Police would do *nothing*!

If your child was attacked by a paedophile, would you be happy that police were unaware of him?

If the Police were unaware of him, how could they *stop* him attacking *any* child? Should they stop everyone and ask if they're a paedophile...???

The Police gain information by stopping and talking/asking questions of others. Yes it may result in 1 conviction in a 1000 but if that 1 conviction stops a child from being raped, or a 100 people killed or maimed in a bomb blast is it still not worth your time to answer a couple of questions?

Yes, because such a scattergun method would not work and your attempts to justify it with figures plucked out of the air are not at all convincing.

Where would you stop? If it stopped one child being abused, would you agree to the Police being able to walk into everyone's house and check their computer for kiddie porn? If it stopped one bomb going off, should they be able to stop and search every Asian or Muslim walking or driving down the street?

Would you *REALLY* want to live in a society where individual's rights have been *so* eroded that such things could take place? I'm sure there are countries in this world whose leaders would *love* such powers...!!

As a foot note, are there any figures on the amount of white people stopped and searched in the same time frame?

Yes, see my post above.

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Do these stops and searches reflect a rise in a certain area for example, in a predominantly Asian area.

As the article says: The total number of stop and searches under the Terrorism Act 2000 in England and Wales more than doubled in 2002/2003 from 8,550 to 21,577.

These figures show an increase, but is it in proportion? I'm admittedly finding it difficult to get the right words but what I am basically saying is, are these figures designed to shock and not lie, or are they 100% honest and indicate what they appear to?

I don't know, you'd have to ask the Home Office, since they produced the figures.

what are the police supposed to do? the current climate states that any terrorist threat is extremely likely to come from an asian or muslim source.
The police wouldnt get anywhere by stopping white, apparently non muslim people would they?

Unfortunately this is completely the wrong question to ask.

What you *should* be asking is "will increasing numbers of stop and searches *actually* help the Police 'get anywhere' "

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/3314009.stm

* * * * *

the number of stop and searches carried out under new anti-terrorism powers tripled to 32,100 between 2001/02 and the following year.

Of those stopped for suspected terrorism, 380 were arrested [ie about 1.2%]

* * * * *

In 2002/03, 895,000 people were stopped by police, which was 21% more than the previous year and the largest total for four years.

West Yorkshire, Merseyside and Staffordshire were the three police force areas to record the biggest increases, at 84%, 66% and 53% respectively.

The Metropolitan Police showed a 33% rise in stop and search, compared with an average 16% rise in the remainder of England and Wales.

* * * * *

The number of arrests following stops and searches rose 16% to 114,300, which was 13% of the total number carried out

* * * * *

So we have 13% of "ordinary stop and searches" generating arrests, but only 1.2% of "terrorism based" ones generating arrests.

Now does that strike you as being "in proportion"? Do you think that is helping the Police "get anywhere" in the prevention of terrorism? Or is such a system actually wasting Police time and causing resentment amongst the communities who would *actually* be better placed to give information to the Police about possible threats if it wasn't for the fact that they probably feel so alienated that their attitude is "sod them, they get all they deserve"?

[Escapee]

I would guess that many of us would be very happy if just 1 of the thousands they stopped and searched was proved to be a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims.

I'm sure we would all think it worthwhile.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I would guess that many of us would be very happy if just 1 of the thousands they stopped and searched was proved to be a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims.

I'm sure we would all think it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I would guess that many of us would be very happy if just 1 of the thousands they stopped and searched was proved to be a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims.

I'm sure we would all think it worthwhile.

And the next group of terrorists you create by persecuting a section of society?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I would guess that many of us would be very happy if just 1 of the thousands they stopped and searched was proved to be a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims.

I'm sure we would all think it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

And the next group of terrorists you create by persecuting a section of society?

....both good points. Perhaps indicating that the police need some 'middle way' of doing things.....

Originally Posted by Escapee

I would guess that many of us would be very happy if just 1 of the thousands they stopped and searched was proved to be a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims.

And *how* exactly *would* you "prove" that they were "a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims"?

Let's spin back in time to September 11th 2001 and note that the hijackers had to pass through airport security metal detectors etc. Now of course they could have been physically searched as well, but even if they had been found with weapons on them, what *evidence* could you have found that they were planning on hijacking planes and ramming them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon?

The answer is almost certainly absolutely none!

So, please, don't make ridiculous assertions that by harassing minorities on the streets you're going to prevent another September 11th style attack or save the lives of "hundreds or thousands of innocent victims" because this is sheer nonsense.

I'm sure we would all think it worthwhile.

Yes, I'm sure many people *would* be happy and think it worthwhile.

Of course they're usually the ones who don't understand how important Civil Rights are or the benefits of not living in a Police State or the fact that searching thousands of people from a minority is liable to alienate a few of them and possibly make them *more* likely to turn to extremism and *want* to commit attacks...

[Pierre]

And *how* exactly *would* you "prove" that they were "a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims"?

Let's spin back in time to September 11th 2001 and note that the hijackers had to pass through airport security metal detectors etc. Now of course they could have been physically searched as well, but even if they had been found with weapons on them, what *evidence* could you have found that they were planning on hijacking planes and ramming them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon?

The answer is almost certainly absolutely none!

The terrorists were USA internal flights which at the time did not have metal detectors etc.

Also at the time if they had knives or guns, as you rightly point out, does not necessarilly mean they might have been out to hijack the plane and use it as a missile, but we didn't know that was their motive.

We do "now" though. Therfore now you can't even get on with a pair of nail scissors.

So, please, don't make ridiculous assertions that by harassing minorities on the streets you're going to prevent another September 11th style attack or save the lives of "hundreds or thousands of innocent victims" because this is sheer nonsense.

I am not for harassing "minorities" (however I would no longer call the Islamic community a minority). But let's say that a random stop and search led to a discovery of a terrorist cell. It could happen, you can't prove otherwise.

Then as Escapee points out, we would all be glad. It may be a 1 in 1 million shot but becuase the odds are that long does that mean we shouldn't do it?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Graham

And *how* exactly *would* you "prove" that they were "a terrorist planning an attack to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent victims"?

Let's spin back in time to September 11th 2001 and note that the hijackers had to pass through airport security metal detectors etc. Now of course they could have been physically searched as well, but even if they had been found with weapons on them, what *evidence* could you have found that they were planning on hijacking planes and ramming them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon?

The answer is almost certainly absolutely none!

So, please, don't make ridiculous assertions that by harassing minorities on the streets you're going to prevent another September 11th style attack or save the lives of "hundreds or thousands of innocent victims" because this is sheer nonsense.



Yes, I'm sure many people *would* be happy and think it worthwhile.

Of course they're usually the ones who don't understand how important Civil Rights are or the benefits of not living in a Police State or the fact that searching thousands of people from a minority is liable to alienate a few of them and possibly make them *more* likely to turn to extremism and *want* to commit attacks...

Whilst I agree that it is hard to prove someones intentions, it would be very suspect if aomeone was carrying say the plans of a football stadium in an envelope who originated from an uncivilised country containing a hard core religiously motivated group of fundamentalists.

We must also realise that very often the police/security forces are not able to supply details for reasons to stop people, as it could break their cover and expose detection methods.

Graham, if you think that is just talking through my backside I could possibly PM you a link so you can see what side I am looking at it from.

Originally Posted by Pierre

The terrorists were USA internal flights which at the time did not have metal detectors etc.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that.

Therfore now you can't even get on with a pair of nail scissors.

You're not *supposed* to be able to get on with them, however I remind you of the British guys who, not long after September 11th, managed to get all the way back to the UK from Florida with knuckle dusters, combat knives and stun guns http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1643009.stm

I am not for harassing "minorities" (however I would no longer call the Islamic community a minority). But let's say that a random stop and search led to a discovery of a terrorist cell. It could happen, you can't prove otherwise. [...] It may be a 1 in 1 million shot but becuase the odds are that long does that mean we shouldn't do it?

Yes, I agree it *could* happen, but how likely is it? One in a million? Maybe.

But what *other* effects could result from trying to get that "one in a million" lucky hit? What effect could it have on relations between that community and the Police? And could it or could it not risk more youngsters turning to extremism?

Consider what effects those could have and then decide whether the chance of possibly discovering a terrorist cell is outweighed by massive breaches of Civil Rights and the loss of presumption of innocence.

What good is a "solution" that just make the problem worse?

Originally Posted by Escapee

Whilst I agree that it is hard to prove someones intentions, it would be very suspect if aomeone was carrying say the plans of a football stadium in an envelope who originated from an uncivilised country containing a hard core religiously motivated group of fundamentalists.

We must also realise that very often the police/security forces are not able to supply details for reasons to stop people, as it could break their cover and expose detection methods.

But this is *NOT* the same thing we're talking about!

I have no objection to "intelligence led" policing, nor to people being stopped *if* there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Neither do I have a problem with the reasons not being revealed if they will compromise security or detection methods *provided* there is some oversight and control imposed to ensure such powers aren't being abused.

However what is being discussed is *random* stop and searches based simply on someone's ethnicity or dress or appearance and that I most definitely have a problem with.