Muslims should expect to be stopped....

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

At last....found the question!

OK how about answering your question with a question

If you are a police officer within a force which confesses itself to be instutionally racist (as GMP here have) are you more likely to stop and search:

1. A white person?
2. A black/Asian person?

The issue with stop and search is that it is a power that has in the past been abused and demonstrated to be counter-productive to effective policing. We are all, I'm sure, concerned with reducing and containing the threat of terrorism (although we may disagree on what the level of threat is) and my point is simply that S&S is unlikely to be in any way effective in doing so.

That does not answer my question.
Also, muslims comming into contact with anti-terroist proceedures over any other group were the comments made, not stop and search.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

That does not answer my question.
Also, muslims comming into contact with anti-terroist proceedures over any other group were the comments made, not stop and search.

But the question is so loaded and misses the point. In promoting stop and search, and explicitly accepting that more innocent muslims will be subject to it, the Police risk losing the support of the 1.6m muslims who live in Britain and who are already feeling alienated because of growing Islamophobia in which people increasingly equate 'muslim' with 'terrorist' Indeed in an earlier post you talked of targeting Muslims. Slip of the keyboard no doubt, but it's terrorists we're supposed to be targeting.

Anyway, as I say, my argument is simply that this tactic will be counter-productive.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It is an extremely valid question, one you felt you could not answer because it exposed the flaws in your argument.

Unlike the Snark, not everything you say three times becomes true.

You have in no way proven or demonstrated the validity of your point nor shown a flaw in my arguments, no matter how many times you claim it.

Perhaps you neglected to read what I actually stated Graham?

No, I read *exactly* what you said. Unfortunately you don't appear to understand the implications of what you are saying.

What did I state which relates to presumption of innocence when dealing with a suspect? Suspect being the operative word graham, it means that someone is suspected of criminal activity but has not be charged, or found guilty, they are still innocent!

Yes, but the *ONLY* grounds you have for "suspicion" is that the suspect has been *seen* in the company of another person (who, themselves, may only be a SUSPECT!)

These are *NOT* reasonable grounds for bringing someone in for questioning without further evidence. You are using supposition to imply guilt.

Perhaps you believe that if someone is murdered in a nightclub the police should let everyone there go and not take them in for questioning, after all, most of them would have had nothing to do with the murder.

This is an entirely different situation and it is ridiculous for you to suggest that they are at all comparable.

Or perhaps you have no idea how the law has been working for the past 50+ years?

Perhaps you'd care to make some reasonable points instead of knocking down straw men?

Intelligence? reasoned response? understanding of quoted text? Not in Graham's posts apparently!!!

Oh dear, back to personal insults.

I'm off again.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh dear, back to personal insults.

Yes, you do appear to be quite good at giving them

I dont see what the problem is.

Lets do what Graham says lets leave them alone and not be racist.
I mean its easy to tell a nasty terrorist islamic fanatic from the non nasty, non terrorist islamics isnt it?
I mean obviosuly the terrorists walk around saying I'm a terrorist I'm going to kill you western infidel.

So nice of them to identify themselves.

[me283]

Interesting programme on TV tonight about immigration. It was a type of "The Case For And Against", and was presented in a case for the prosecution/defence type way. Very interesting.

Anyway, the "prosecution" called a really good witness, by the name of Liddle or Little (can't remember as I'm tired). Anyway, he's a well known radio presenter, former Labour party researcher, documentary producer, something to do with the Spectator etc etc.

He said that there were now approximately 2 million Muslims in the UK. His point of concern was that whilst he embraced the mix of cultures we have in the UK, he was concerned with Muslims. The reason was, he said, that the Muslim society are becoming more of a seperate society within the overall society, and that was not good; in fact it caused a great deal of alienation.

Now, there are two points to make here: Firstly, with all the will in the world 2 million Muslims will not be stopped for questioning. Secondly, due to the Muslim community shutting out society as a whole (his view, not necessarily mine), it is vital that communication be kept open and that the police presence is very evident.

Just ny views, that's all.

Originally Posted by me283

He said that there were now approximately 2 million Muslims in the UK. His point of concern was that whilst he embraced the mix of cultures we have in the UK, he was concerned with Muslims. The reason was, he said, that the Muslim society are becoming more of a seperate society within the overall society, and that was not good; in fact it caused a great deal of alienation.

When the UK first started "importing" workers from the West Indies back in the 1950s there were similar claims that these "coloureds" would form their own "separate cultures" in our cities etc etc.

Somehow, however, it seems that they've become integrated into our society without creating "blacks only" communities.

Now, there are two points to make here: Firstly, with all the will in the world 2 million Muslims will not be stopped for questioning.

No, only the ones (according to Xaccers) who happen to pray at the same mosque as a "suspect".

Oh and Xaccers, in answer to your "night club murder" scenario, if someone was murdered in a night club, yes I would expect the Police to question everyone at the club.

However if someone *left* the club and murdered a random stranger who was *not* at the club, I would consider it a waste of time and resources for the Police to question everyone at the club.

Secondly, due to the Muslim community shutting out society as a whole (his view, not necessarily mine), it is vital that communication be kept open and that the police presence is very evident.

I agree that communication should be kept open. However surrounding them with a noticable "police presence" is probably not the best way of saying to these people "we want you as part of *our* society"...

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

When the UK first started "importing" workers from the West Indies back in the 1950s there were similar claims that these "coloureds" would form their own "separate cultures" in our cities etc etc.

Somehow, however, it seems that they've become integrated into our society without creating "blacks only" communities.



No, only the ones (according to Xaccers) who happen to pray at the same mosque as a "suspect".

I agree that communication should be kept open. However surrounding them with a noticable "police presence" is probably not the best way of saying to these people "we want you as part of *our* society"...

The big difference is that the Muslim culture is very different from or own, not least in that they fundamentally oppose some things that most of us take for granted, and many have fought long and hard to achieve. And by the way, there are actually a lot of "blacks only" communities in the UK.

The communication lines have to be opened, and kept open. Someone has to start the ball rolling, and in this case, it may well be the police.

Re: your comment about Xaccers, what's that got to do with anything? I don't know Xaccers personally, but I would bet you a pound to a penny that he actually won't get to decide who is and isn't questioned?

I really dont see any alternative to random stopping.

Theres a threat from the islamic quarter, youre certainly not going to waste time picking on non islamics so you dont appear racist.
And thats the problem, because of certain liberal attitudes, trying to protect innocents of all races, the authorities are branded racist. I still cant figure that out.

Its not like theres a quota, stop 5 non muslims for every 5 muslims. It doesnt work that way and it simply cant work that way.

We have to do what we can to prevent an attrocity on the scale of 9/11. Some people wont like it, but its tough, I'd much rather feel safe walking the streets visiting landmarks etc than worry about whether my police force was being racist by stopping the people that fit the description.

Look what happened in Gibraltar, all intel stated the IRA were going to kill soldiers and most likely innocent civillians, the SAS shot them dead. Subsequent investigation revealed no remote detonating device. And wow did the liberals cry over that one, you murdered them.
Hang on a minute, these people were IRA terrorists, what were the SAS supposed to do, take the risk they were on holiday? Wait for them to kill before taking action? These people were considered armed and extremely dangerous, hence the reason the SAS were called in in the first place.

Was it racist because they stopped the Irish, were they racist because the gunned down white people?
Or were they simply doing their job ?


If I waled down the street with osama bin ladin, wouldnt you think, hang on I bet he has some info, lets question him.
If I did the same 15 years ago with Gerry Adams, the same thing.
So I think question people that attend the same mosque as a suspect is pretty sensible and damned well logical.

[me283]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

I really dont see any alternative to random stopping.

Theres a threat from the islamic quarter, youre certainly not going to waste time picking on non islamics so you dont appear racist.
And thats the problem, because of certain liberal attitudes, trying to protect innocents of all races, the authorities are branded racist. I still cant figure that out.

Its not like theres a quota, stop 5 non muslims for every 5 muslims. It doesnt work that way and it simply cant work that way.

We have to do what we can to prevent an attrocity on the scale of 9/11. Some people wont like it, but its tough, I'd much rather feel safe walking the streets visiting landmarks etc than worry about whether my police force was being racist by stopping the people that fit the description.

Look what happened in Gibraltar, all intel stated the IRA were going to kill soldiers and most likely innocent civillians, the SAS shot them dead. Subsequent investigation revealed no remote detonating device. And wow did the liberals cry over that one, you murdered them.
Hang on a minute, these people were IRA terrorists, what were the SAS supposed to do, take the risk they were on holiday? Wait for them to kill before taking action? These people were considered armed and extremely dangerous, hence the reason the SAS were called in in the first place.

Was it racist because they stopped the Irish, were they racist because the gunned down white people?
Or were they simply doing their job ?

All good points TimeWarrior. And I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that in Gibraltar they actually did find explosives in a car, although as you rightly point out no detonating device. And yes, there were cries of overreaction, but the alternative was unthinkable.

It stands to reason, if there are Muslims who are known to be terrorists, or terrorists who are known to be Muslims, then a good place to look for them might be in the Muslim community. You don't try buying a loaf of bread in a shoe shop, do you?

Again, I would reiterate that Hazel Blears has caused a big issue here. I would expect this to be a case of specific Muslims being questioned, not every Muslim or anyone who might look like one. I would also expect some kind of "Muslim community focussed" initiative; eg talks to Muslim groups, more police presence in the Muslim community, perhaps attempts to form bonds with Mosques etc. But that would be no different to the focus on the Chinese community if there were a perceived threat from that section of society.

[Xaccers]

Graham, with regards to the red rep you've given me, exactly how old are you???

Originally Posted by me283

The big difference is that the Muslim culture is very different from or own,

And that's a bad thing? We seem to be trying to export "Western Culture" all over the world which is also "very different" from the indigenous cultures. Is that also a bad thing and should be stopped?

Or is it a case of "Us: Good. Them: Bad"?

not least in that they fundamentally oppose some things that most of us take for granted,

What about all those British ex-Pats out in the Middle East etc who want to drink alcohol against Islamic law? Somehow the Muslim communities seem to have come to an accommodation with them, why can't we do the same with the Muslims here?

and many have fought long and hard to achieve.

You mean like not being locked up without charge? The right to challenge evidence in court? The right not to be restricted in your own home on the say-so of a politician...???

And by the way, there are actually a lot of "blacks only" communities in the UK.

Care to back that claim up with anything? Yes, there are areas which have high levels of black occupancy, but we're not talking about "no go" areas for whites or "ghettos".

Re: your comment about Xaccers, what's that got to do with anything?

It was a belated response to a comment that I meant to make earlier but forgot, so it got tagged on this message.
__________________

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

I really dont see any alternative to random stopping.

I do. It's called "Intelligence based Policing" ie using intelligence (in both senses of the word!) so you don't end up harassing innocent people based solely on what they look like or how they dress or where they pray.

Theres a threat from the islamic quarter, youre certainly not going to waste time picking on non islamics so you dont appear racist.

The point is you don't "pick on" *any* group. If you have *reasonable* grounds for stopping someone, that's a different matter from "he looks suspiciously Muslim".

And thats the problem, because of certain liberal attitudes, trying to protect innocents of all races, the authorities are branded racist. I still cant figure that out.

Its not like theres a quota, stop 5 non muslims for every 5 muslims. It doesnt work that way and it simply cant work that way.

It seems clear that you can't figure it out because your last paragraph is nonsensical.

Of *course* it can't work that way, but neither can it work, as I keep pointing out, that you simply stop someone based on their religion, looks, clothes etc!

We have to do what we can to prevent an attrocity on the scale of 9/11. Some people wont like it, but its tough,

And once again I have little doubt that Osama Bin Laden and friends are sitting in their caves, watching satellite TV and laughing as we throw away the liberties that make our society *FREE* and which they hate so much.

I'd much rather feel safe walking the streets visiting landmarks etc than worry about whether my police force was being racist by stopping the people that fit the description.

I'm sure you would, but once again I point out, *YOU* are unlikely to be stopped or harassed, so again it seems a case of "I'm alright, Jack, it's ok to hassle people who aren't *me* so long as *I* feel safe".

Look what happened in Gibraltar, all intel stated the IRA were going to kill soldiers and most likely innocent civillians, the SAS shot them dead. Subsequent investigation revealed no remote detonating device. And wow did the liberals cry over that one, you murdered them.

Yes, because what happened was sheer, cold blooded murder, nothing else.

Hang on a minute, these people were IRA terrorists, what were the SAS supposed to do, take the risk they were on holiday? Wait for them to kill before taking action? These people were considered armed and extremely dangerous, hence the reason the SAS were called in in the first place.

If these people were *known* IRA terrorists (which they were, as you admit) and they were on UK soil (which, again, you admit they were) they could have been *arrested* for being members of an illegal organisation.

Yet the *excuse* the SAS gave was that "they thought they were going for a gun or a detonator" when challenged, but that simply smacks of incompetence because it would have been possible to isolate and detain all of the victims with proper planning and manpower had they *really* wanted to arrest them.

You appear to think that it's ok to blast people down on the street simply on suspicion, yet if the SAS had been following them for as long as they said, they could have isolated the possible threat of a car bomb and taken the suspects into custody instead of gunning them down.

Was it racist because they stopped the Irish, were they racist because the gunned down white people?
Or were they simply doing their job ?

Who said anything about the SAS being "racist"? The Gibraltar murders had nothing to do with race at all. Please don't suggest that they did and please try to stay on topic.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

And I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that in Gibraltar they actually did find explosives in a car, although as you rightly point out no detonating device.

This is an interesting one because searching on this gives results varying from there were "no explosives found" to "no explosives but another car had the equipment to make a detonator" to "140 lbs of high explosives were found".

It stands to reason, if there are Muslims who are known to be terrorists, or terrorists who are known to be Muslims, then a good place to look for them might be in the Muslim community. You don't try buying a loaf of bread in a shoe shop, do you?

I don't know about you, but when I go out to buy a loaf of bread, I *already* have some idea of what sort of bread I am going to buy, eg Brown Wholemeal.

I don't go into the bakers and examine *EVERY SINGLE* loaf of bread before I decide "hmm, I'll take this one" and I think the baker would get rather annoyed were I to handle and examine and taste each one...!
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Graham, with regards to the red rep you've given me, exactly how old are you???

Answered by PM to keep the discussion on topic.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Care to back that claim up with anything? Yes, there are areas which have high levels of black occupancy, but we're not talking about "no go" areas for whites or "ghettos".


I don't go into the bakers and examine *EVERY SINGLE* loaf of bread before I decide "hmm, I'll take this one" and I think the baker would get rather annoyed were I to handle and examine and taste each one...!

Have you ever been to Broadwater Farm? I have. Sure, you find people of all races there, but there is a very high density of coloured people. That's no bad thing per se, but it is not the only area of it's type.

Re the bread... as I've pointed out, not every Muslim will be questioned. It ain't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by me283

Have you ever been to Broadwater Farm? I have. Sure, you find people of all races there, but there is a very high density of coloured people. That's no bad thing per se, but it is not the only area of it's type.

Of course the residents of Broadwater Farm would never prefer to live in Kensington. People often don't get to choose where they live. Poverty is often a major factor. Asian families extended family networks and cultural cohesion do play their part but the idea that people want to live in crap neighbourhoods (whatever their colour) is absurd

Re the bread... as I've pointed out, not every Muslim will be questioned. It ain't gonna happen.

Stop and searching 1.6m people may indeed prove problematic But the fact that there are so few muslim police officers and an acknowledged lack of understanding of muslim culture within police forces is an issue. Targetting muslims with such a blunt and ineffective tool will only create antagonism and further distance the police from a community they need to serve. Not checked your profile but are you old enough to recall the SUS laws and the devastating effect they had?

I still dont get it.

Using intelligence means stopping people of a certai description.

They are looking for a threat from islamic fanatics, Now let me see where would the most likely place be to find fanatics?
Oh yeah perhaps with others.......this is reasonable.
So other being, For instance Abu Hamza, well he's in prison, but other people that associated with abu hamza arent, so perhaps maybe we should ask them a few questions. Hey I know lets ask some of their associates questions.

It isnt random, it is using a form of intelligence. However it is still selecting a certain target group.

What exactly is your problem with this Graham?

Would you be doing as much crying and complaining if it was people of a christian background, that wore jeans and t-shirt being questioned about being a western infidel in Afghanistan?

I somehow doubt it.

maybe we shouldnt adopt these tactics, perhaps we should invite them all here because no doubt they are just misunderstood, maybe with some counselling they will see the error of their ways thus proving they deserved to be in the community all along.