Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Multiple deaths from knife and gun crime and there seems no end to this.. 35 deaths so far 22 in March alone?. and over 13,000 recorded knife crimes this year in the capital
Huge blame culture going on.. everybody blaming each other,… who should take responsibility ?

turtle wrote:Multiple deaths from knife and gun crime and there seems no end to this.. 35 deaths so far 22 in March alone?. and over 13,000 recorded knife crimes this year in the capital
Huge blame culture going on.. everybody blaming each other,… who should take responsibility ?

The weapon carriers!!

Some people have no moral compass so the only deterrent is fear.
Forget about rehabilitating criminals simply punish them.
If the police are allowed to search you and you are caught with a knife then you should be imprisoned for five years. If you stab someone 15 years if you kill them life.
When you see the sentences you can understand why the police have all but given up, so for the criminal the odds on being caught are slim.
If caught, the odds on receiving a custodial sentence for you first few offences are also slim. Then if you receive a nominal sentence you do very little of it.
Five years usually mean you will do half of which you can knock off a chunk for being on remand while waiting for your court date. Given that you are now doing a short sentence you'll be moved to an open prison with some day release in no time at all.

Thieving is a nice job. You don't need any qualifications, you can choose your own hours, the work is easy and the rewards can be high. If you do not have a moral compass the only drawback is you will go to prison if caught. Remove that deterrent and who wouldn't want to do it?

In TRNC it is relatively crime free, is that due to the efficiency of the police? Almost certainly not but if you are caught the sentences are harsh and I'd imagine the prisons aren't too pleasant.

tomsteel wrote:

turtle wrote:Multiple deaths from knife and gun crime and there seems no end to this.. 35 deaths so far 22 in March alone?. and over 13,000 recorded knife crimes this year in the capital
Huge blame culture going on.. everybody blaming each other,… who should take responsibility ?

The weapon carriers!!

Unfortunately that's not going to happen is it ?

turtle wrote:

tomsteel wrote:

turtle wrote:Multiple deaths from knife and gun crime and there seems no end to this.. 35 deaths so far 22 in March alone?. and over 13,000 recorded knife crimes this year in the capital
Huge blame culture going on.. everybody blaming each other,… who should take responsibility ?

The weapon carriers!!

Unfortunately that's not going to happen is it ?[/quote.

Regrettably turtle, no. However, who's responsibility do you think it is? As a parent I tried to bring up my three sons in a responsible manner and to date, they are all trouble free and I doubt very much they would carry a weapon. Policing, government initiatives, legal powers are all in place, yet organised gangs of various ages, races, creeds, religions, ethnicity et al are rife in a number of major cities within the UK, not just London. So, I return your question for your opinion.

You are right.. Responsible Parenting is key to keeping your kids on the straight and narrow, I myself have 2 sons who up to date are like yours.. trouble free and have largely kept away from the undesirable element of their social circle.
My own view is that Policing in these area’s has over the years gone stale as Stop and search in now frowned upon by community leaders and so called “do gooders” and criticized as singling out ethnic communities but when you look at the issues in London at the moment all the deaths and injuries are Black teenagers seemingly creating gangland area’s and we appear to be powerless to stamp it out

turtle wrote:You are right.. Responsible Parenting is key to keeping your kids on the straight and narrow, I myself have 2 sons who up to date are like yours.. trouble free and have largely kept away from the undesirable element of their social circle.
My own view is that Policing in these area’s has over the years gone stale as Stop and search in now frowned upon by community leaders and so called “do gooders” and criticized as singling out ethnic communities but when you look at the issues in London at the moment all the deaths and injuries are Black teenagers seemingly creating gangland area’s and we appear to be powerless to stamp it out

Sadly, the gangs are not just black. Ukrainian, Rumanian, Russians et al all have criminal gangs operating within the UK. Drugs, trafficking, robbery all add to their wealth and it is easy pickings. Targeted intelligence may help but this is not cheap.

Its called Cocaine.......sadly Britain is the Cocaine capital of the world. Huge money involved and young people hardly out of their teens are being used by the gang masters to carry and deliver drugs across London and other big cities. Once recruited there is no going back, If you don't do exactly what you are told its byebye. Monstrous and brutal.

Enchanted wrote:Its called Cocaine.......sadly Britain is the Cocaine capital of the world.

I think it's far more banal than that, in the majority of these cases it's more likely someone trying to steal £20 or a pair of expensive trainers.
Generally crime is based on risk versus reward, when the risk of getting caught or a decent sentence is so low then the rewards don't have to be that high.
As for the race card, there is no doubt that stop and search used to hit the black community higher in the old days although the police would argue that if that is the demographic carrying out say 70% of the knife crime then simple maths means they are likely to be the recipient of 70% of the searches.
The one thing the do-gooders overlook is a young black kid is in the highest risk category to be stabbed so how anything that might stop that is racist escapes me.

I guess my 'liberal' tendencies are know to many who have read my posts in the past. This is a worrying phenomenon. I have no 'answers'. I do have some thoughts.

From personal memory.

On the carrying of knives by 'youth'. My memories of my own childhood is that of carrying knives through out my childhood. Pen knives but also smallish bowie type knives, with a blade of maybe 3 - 4 inches. Such knives would typically be used for 'whittling' and the like and certainly I have no memory of ever having used such on another person but in my childhood, in 'ruralish' Hertfordshire, say from 10 to about 15 or 16 there was nothing unusual in 'carrying' a knife for me.

On being brought up properly and behaviour of youth. I think I was brought up pretty well by my parents on the whole. I do have a singular memory however of being in a group of friends, maybe 3 or 4 of us, aged maybe 11 or 12 years old and for some reason on this particular day throwing stones over a gardens hedge with the aim of trying to hit and break the window panes on the greenhouse the other side of the hedge. Now this was not something I ever did on any sort of regular basis. As I say my memory of such type of incident is pretty much singular. Nor am I saying that this kind of attempted (I do not know if we managed to break any windows) 'mindless petty vandalism' is comparable to the recent tragic events that are the topic of this thread. My 'point' is however that young people / adolescents, especially boys, do sometimes end up doing stupid and mindless things, sometimes with bad consequences and sometimes despite their parental upbringing rather than because of it.

More generally, as I have mentioned elsewhere I have been reading Domonic Sandrooks 4 volume history of the UK covering the period 1956-1979. The issue of and concern about 'rising crime levels' generally, youth crime specifically, of the 'permissive' society, lack of hard policing and sentencing are constant throughout the 4 volumes. Whether gangs of 'teddy boys' to 'rockers' to 'mods' to 'skinheads', it seems there is a constant concern about such issue and the resultant headlines and public debate and the like. Determining long trends is notoriously difficult. Over decades surveys showing people's feeling of sense of 'things getting worse' even in periods when crime statistics actually indicate they are improving. I am not saying there is not a deteriorating worsening of such things over time. I am saying I remain suspicious of my feeling that there is as much as I remain suspicious of crime statistics. I really would not be surprised if you could find similar such accounts from say 'Roman times'. Of growing 'youth violence', of deteriorating values, of lack of effective policing and sanction etc. In many ways I would be more surprised if you could not to be honest.

I happen to be reading the book covering the period 1956 - 83 currently (i read the others already ) and at a section covering issues around immigration and race based violence in the 1958. I have to say the scale and levels of violence being described in this period are too me shocking even by today's 'standards'. Some very very short extracts to try and give a flavour.

page 336, never had it so good wrote:Within hours news of the affray had spread throughout the area [st anns's area of nottingham] and a mob of over a thousand white men and women had assembled with razors, knives and bottles, bent on attacking any West Indians they could find.

Racism alone does not explain the disturbances; they were as much a product of poverty and despair as they were a reflection of racial prejudice. In St Ann's, white gangs had attacked one another when they could not find black victims on whom to vent their aggression

This is 1958 ! This is just a tiny sample of the of descriptions of levels of violence and youth based violence throughout the whole period covered.

Finally on stop and search. I personally believe it actually just is not effective. Regardless of that, ask yourself would you mind being stopped and searched whilst going about your normal daily life just on the suspicion you might be up to no good ? Once ? Once a year ? Once a month ? Once a week ? Multiple times a week ? Stop and search will always mean stopping more people who are not doing anything wrong than those you do catch and it will always prejudice more law abiding citizens that happen to be in a 'group' that may well statistically have a slightly higher levels of crime than 'groups' that have lower ones. It is in my view a 'blunt', time intensive and largely ineffective 'tool' that is guaranteed to create resentment for a greater number of law abiding citizens that criminals it identifies.

I'm a believer in stop and search. Tough proactive policing might cause resentment but the police aren't there to be liked they are there to stop crime and be effective. As long as they carry out their duties without prejudice or bullying then strong policing can only be a good thing.

I was a bit of a tearaway in the seventies and my father I believe was even worse before me. I can remember him explaining to me why cut throat razors were carried in his era.
If you think about it they are more impractical than a knife. The simple reason was back then if you were caught with a knife then you got five years. No debate. With a cut throat razor you might have a slim chance of explaining it away, with a knife no chance.

Tougher policing and stronger sentences will cut crime it's not rocket science.

I've read most of Dominic Sandbrook's books and recommend Alwyn Turner and Andy Beckett too.

erol wrote:I guess my 'liberal' tendencies are know to many who have read my posts in the past. This is a worrying phenomenon. I have no 'answers'. I do have some thoughts.

From personal memory.

On the carrying of knives by 'youth'. My memories of my own childhood is that of carrying knives through out my childhood. Pen knives but also smallish bowie type knives, with a blade of maybe 3 - 4 inches. Such knives would typically be used for 'whittling' and the like and certainly I have no memory of ever having used such on another person but in my childhood, in 'ruralish' Hertfordshire, say from 10 to about 15 or 16 there was nothing unusual in 'carrying' a knife for me.

On being brought up properly and behaviour of youth. I think I was brought up pretty well by my parents on the whole. I do have a singular memory however of being in a group of friends, maybe 3 or 4 of us, aged maybe 11 or 12 years old and for some reason on this particular day throwing stones over a gardens hedge with the aim of trying to hit and break the window panes on the greenhouse the other side of the hedge. Now this was not something I ever did on any sort of regular basis. As I say my memory of such type of incident is pretty much singular. Nor am I saying that this kind of attempted (I do not know if we managed to break any windows) 'mindless petty vandalism' is comparable to the recent tragic events that are the topic of this thread. My 'point' is however that young people / adolescents, especially boys, do sometimes end up doing stupid and mindless things, sometimes with bad consequences and sometimes despite their parental upbringing rather than because of it.

More generally, as I have mentioned elsewhere I have been reading Domonic Sandrooks 4 volume history of the UK covering the period 1956-1979. The issue of and concern about 'rising crime levels' generally, youth crime specifically, of the 'permissive' society, lack of hard policing and sentencing are constant throughout the 4 volumes. Whether gangs of 'teddy boys' to 'rockers' to 'mods' to 'skinheads', it seems there is a constant concern about such issue and the resultant headlines and public debate and the like. Determining long trends is notoriously difficult. Over decades surveys showing people's feeling of sense of 'things getting worse' even in periods when crime statistics actually indicate they are improving. I am not saying there is not a deteriorating worsening of such things over time. I am saying I remain suspicious of my feeling that there is as much as I remain suspicious of crime statistics. I really would not be surprised if you could find similar such accounts from say 'Roman times'. Of growing 'youth violence', of deteriorating values, of lack of effective policing and sanction etc. In many ways I would be more surprised if you could not to be honest.

I happen to be reading the book covering the period 1956 - 83 currently (i read the others already ) and at a section covering issues around immigration and race based violence in the 1958. I have to say the scale and levels of violence being described in this period are too me shocking even by today's 'standards'. Some very very short extracts to try and give a flavour.

page 336, never had it so good wrote:Within hours news of the affray had spread throughout the area [st anns's area of nottingham] and a mob of over a thousand white men and women had assembled with razors, knives and bottles, bent on attacking any West Indians they could find.

Racism alone does not explain the disturbances; they were as much a product of poverty and despair as they were a reflection of racial prejudice. In St Ann's, white gangs had attacked one another when they could not find black victims on whom to vent their aggression

This is 1958 ! This is just a tiny sample of the of descriptions of levels of violence and youth based violence throughout the whole period covered.

Finally on stop and search. I personally believe it actually just is not effective. Regardless of that, ask yourself would you mind being stopped and searched whilst going about your normal daily life just on the suspicion you might be up to no good ? Once ? Once a year ? Once a month ? Once a week ? Multiple times a week ? Stop and search will always mean stopping more people who are not doing anything wrong than those you do catch and it will always prejudice more law abiding citizens that happen to be in a 'group' that may well statistically have a slightly higher levels of crime than 'groups' that have lower ones. It is in my view a 'blunt', time intensive and largely ineffective 'tool' that is guaranteed to create resentment for a greater number of law abiding citizens that criminals it identifies.

All very well and good Erol but you mention nothing of what causes this cancer in our society or given any cures for these heinous crimes
Plenty of Liberal comments and wishy washy analogies but what would you suggest to put these wrongs write ?... please don't mention throwing bucket loads money at it please.

I read a really interesting article the other day, an interview with a black guy whose son is in a permanent vegetative state due to being stabbed in 2016. He puts the blame squarely on dysfunctional families and said the cure has to start with the family taking control of their child.

turtle wrote: All very well and good Erol but you mention nothing of what causes this cancer in our society or given any cures for these heinous crimes Plenty of Liberal comments and wishy washy analogies but what would you suggest to put these wrongs write ?... please don't mention throwing bucket loads money at it please.

I suppose if I am suggesting anything (and I am not sure I am, rather more just 'musing') and if it is the case that these 'issues' have in fact existed and been documented as existing since 'roman times', then throwing any money at anything, be it for extra police to waste more time annoying more innocent people than they prevent, or more prisons and harsher sentences with all the costs that means, or be it money for 'youth outreach programs' and sending young offenders to 'adventure camps' instead of jail - all is unlikely to make much difference and thus is equally a waste of money. That the problem (and the constant search for a solution) may well just be part of the 'human condition' and is essentially unsolvable.

I have no problem with stop and search whatsoever, being as I have nothing to hide and do not carry weapons about me... small price to pay to help to remove this scum from the streets, but I suppose the Human rights brigade will win over again and protect the poor little souls who go around carving people up. TSK

erol wrote:

turtle wrote: All very well and good Erol but you mention nothing of what causes this cancer in our society or given any cures for these heinous crimes Plenty of Liberal comments and wishy washy analogies but what would you suggest to put these wrongs write ?... please don't mention throwing bucket loads money at it please.

I suppose if I am suggesting anything (and I am not sure I am, rather more just 'musing') and if it is the case that these 'issues' have in fact existed and been documented as existing since 'roman times', then throwing any money at anything, be it for extra police to waste more time annoying more innocent people than they prevent, or more prisons and harsher sentences with all the costs that means, or be it money for 'youth outreach programs' and sending young offenders to 'adventure camps' instead of jail - all is unlikely to make much difference and thus is equally a waste of money. That the problem (and the constant search for a solution) may well just be part of the 'human condition' and is essentially unsolvable.

The murder rate has what doubled or tripled since the abolition of the death penalty?
I am sure you’ll find knife crime has exploded since stop and search was deemed un pc.
It will no doubt be costly to imprison more people but safety costs money.
Forget outreach programs and adventure camps. you do a crime you go to jail.
I guarantee that after the initial spike the amount of people going to prison will go down as it will act as a deterrent and people will stop or control themselves.
I agree that there are probably the same amount of psychos now as there were in Roman times some people aren’t wired up right but what will stop are the opportunists and followers.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: The murder rate has what doubled or tripled since the abolition of the death penalty?

https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-ra ... abolished/

summary - yes doubled, given the right caveats.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I am sure you’ll find knife crime has exploded since stop and search was deemed un pc.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/au ... ssida-dick

Get the rate from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 or better and I would be happier. Back in the days when it ended up being declared 'un pc' I suspect it was much worse than the current (claimed) 1 in 3 but do not have any data to hand to back that up. Just my suspicion.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I agree that there are probably the same amount of psychos now as there were in Roman times some people aren’t wired up right but what will stop are the opportunists and followers.

Not really thinking of 'psychos' so much as this idea that 'youth of today are out of control'

"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."

Apparently it is from 1274 AD, at least according to this source.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=408989

a few more 'opinions' on stop and search

Governnment sources say they are still not convinced that increased stop and search reduces violence, saying the evidence shows no link. Dick says she will back her officers in its use where it is justified, following calls by some for it to be increased.

When the practice was at its height in 2011-12, the Met was conducting more than 500,000 stops a year, disproportionately targeting African-Caribbean people, with the vast majority of searches producing no evidence of crime but poisoning community relations. Since April 2017, the Met has carried out 115,000 stops.

source https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... n-killings

Meanwhile back in the real world.... 2 more stabbings in Croydon tonight

erol wrote: Get the rate from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 or better and I would be happier. Back in the days when it ended up being declared 'un pc' I suspect it was much worse than the current (claimed) 1 in 3 but do not have any data to hand to back that up. Just my suspicion.

erol wrote:a few more 'opinions' on stop and search

Governnment sources say they are still not convinced that increased stop and search reduces violence, saying the evidence shows no link. Dick says she will back her officers in its use where it is justified, following calls by some for it to be increased.

When the practice was at its height in 2011-12, the Met was conducting more than 500,000 stops a year, disproportionately targeting African-Caribbean people, with the vast majority of searches producing no evidence of crime but poisoning community relations. Since April 2017, the Met has carried out 115,000 stops.

source https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... n-killings

No offense Erol but if the Guardian told me it was night I'd look out the window to see for myself.

The BBC unwittingly printed this which if you look at a couple of charts shows you stop and search less and knife crime goes up.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

It's common sense surely? It's why they search baggage at airports, have cameras in shops etc.
No doubt some SJW might be able to fiddle some statistics to show otherwise but Tesco putting CCTV up cuts shop lifting. They are a ruthless Tory business, why spend money otherwise.
I use Tesco do the cameras make me feel like a criminal? Not at all.

If young black men are getting stopped four times as often maybe it is because they are four times more likely to be carrying a knife? I don't buy into this institutional racism of the police, not anymore.

One thing is certain the racial politics of the left is getting young black kids killed at a higher proportion than young white kids.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: No offense Erol but if the Guardian told me it was night I'd look out the window to see for myself.

No offence taken, I have a similar view of the mail and express, though that does not stop me reading articles from such and considering if I think what is in them in any given place is correct or not.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: It's common sense surely?

For me it is about how many citizens (of any colour , creed or back ground) you have to 'annoy' (and waste police time doing so) vs 'how many crimes you prevent' and at this level nothing to do with racism. If in order to prevent one crime you have to annoy 10 law abiding citizens, then for me this is not a great system or 'value' and I believe that the time wasted annoying 10 innocent citizens to prevent one crime could be better used in other ways to prevent crimes, all without having to annoy innocent citizens at all in the process. So you can go down the ratios. ! in 5, 1 in 3 , 1 in 2, 2 in 1 and so on. Form me I the cut of point is the 1 in 2 or better. That is if for every crime you prevent you only have to annoy one law abiding citizen (or less) then that would for me be acceptable value. If racial based profiling is an effective means of getting to that ratio of 1 in 2 or better, I have no problem with it. Above that ratio I do.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:One thing is certain the racial politics of the left is getting young black kids killed at a higher proportion than young white kids.

Certain to you maybe but I remain considerably less certain that you appear. Which is the cause and which is the effect ? Are 'left wing politics' a result of the fact that more blacks kids are being killed than white or a cause of ti. Like I say I remain 'uncertain' on this (and this kind) of issue.

erol wrote: For me it is about how many citizens (of any colour , creed or back ground) you have to 'annoy' (and waste police time doing so) vs 'how many crimes you prevent' and at this level nothing to do with racism. If in order to prevent one crime you have to annoy 10 law abiding citizens, then for me this is not a great system or 'value' and I believe that the time wasted annoying 10 innocent citizens to prevent one crime could be better used in other ways to prevent crimes, all without having to annoy innocent citizens at all in the process.

Generally rules have a habit of annoying people.
It probably annoys a lot of people who believe they can drive perfectly well after having five pints of lager that they will be over the legal limit after drinking two.
When driving through London in the early hours of the morning I was often pulled over on sprurious reasons, obviously to check as to whether I had been drinking. Irritating but if it gets drunken drivers off the road then that can only be a good thing.
Probably when the police do neighbourhood enquiries after a murder it annoys people to answer their door.

Unfortunately it is difficult to catch the guilty without inconveniencing the innocent.
I am all for people's freedoms and do not want to go down the road of a police state but the left seem more concerned about the freedoms and rights of criminals than everyday folk.
I would question how much freedom the pensioner in one of these high rise prisons feels they have.

erol wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:One thing is certain the racial politics of the left is getting young black kids killed at a higher proportion than young white kids.

Certain to you maybe but I remain considerably less certain that you appear. Which is the cause and which is the effect ? Are 'left wing politics' a result of the fact that more blacks kids are being killed than white or a cause of ti. Like I say I remain 'uncertain' on this (and this kind) of issue.

You don't think that black kids are more likely to be the victim of a knife crime?
Even the Guardian admits that in London blacks kids are more likely to be the victim.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -the-facts

Obviously they spin it to say that in the rest of the UK it is more likely to be white kids but omit to mention that London accounts for a third of UK knife crime.
It's what I love about statistics you can do anything with them.
E.g.
Buckinghamshire one stabbing of a white victim.
Sussex two stabbings both white victims.
London 800 stabbings 600 black victims.

So you can say quite truthfully In two thirds of the locations the majority of victims were white.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: When driving through London in the early hours of the morning I was often pulled over on sprurious reasons, obviously to check as to whether I had been drinking. Irritating but if it gets drunken drivers off the road then that can only be a good thing.

I think in such cases the chances that those doing the stopping achieve a ratio of 1 in 2 or better is quite likely. Certainly when driving around myself here and I see someone doing something 'dubious' and think 'bet they are on the mobile phone' I would claim my accuracy ratio makes 1 in 2 or better.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Probably when the police do neighbourhood enquiries after a murder it annoys people to answer their door.

I do not think people generally are annoyed with helping police with enquires about a specific crime that has happend and that they themselves are not being suspected of. 'Helping' police on the basis they they themselves, in the opinion of the officer concerned, might be committing a crime is to my mind somewhat different.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Unfortunately it is difficult to catch the guilty without inconveniencing the innocent.

Would you be ok with the police doing periodic sweeps where they stop and search everyone in a given area / place to look for possible crimes being committed ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: You don't think that black kids are more likely to be the victim of a knife crime?

With respect can I suggest you try reading what I wrote one more time ?

erol wrote: I think in such cases the chances that those doing the stopping achieve a ratio of 1 in 2 or better is quite likely. Certainly when driving around myself here and I see someone doing something 'dubious' and think 'bet they are on the mobile phone' I would claim my accuracy ratio makes 1 in 2 or better.

The problem with ratios and quotas is they end up being hijacked by the pc police.
Airport security is an example. How many times have you seen an 80 year old woman have to be inconvenienced by taking off her shoes, I've seen it countless times.
Does she fit the profile of a potential shoe bomber? Is it being done so as not to pigeon hole the profile of a potential shoe bomber?
It's a waste of time and resources in the name of political correctness.
Unless you believe it is better not to check anyone?

erol wrote:
I do not think people generally are annoyed with helping police with enquires about a specific crime that has happend and that they themselves are not being suspected of. 'Helping' police on the basis they they themselves, in the opinion of the officer concerned, might be committing a crime is to my mind somewhat different.

Depends what your view is, I am in favour of pro-active policing. Do you not think the police having an evening pulling over cars on the dual carriageway to catch people drinking and driving etc is a good idea or an invasion of civil liberties?

erol wrote:
Would you be ok with the police doing periodic sweeps where they stop and search everyone in a given area / place to look for possible crimes being committed ?

Generally you'll find police usually have a purge when a certain crime is out of control. I would have no problem with that, would you be happy explaining to a black lady why her son is dead because the police were frightened of being proactive because they were frightened of being perceived as racist.
It is this tip toeing around a problem that led to the epidemic of child abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale etc etc or are we going to continue to not accept there is a problem there?
I personally wouldn't be getting on my high horse if the police randomly asked my 14 year old daughter what she was doing with four middle aged men who are obviously not her father.

The problem with the overly liberal approach is people lose confidence in authority and search for alternatives.
In the quest to stop a Nazi state they lay the conditions for one to begin.

It is this tip toeing around a problem that led to the epidemic of child abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale etc etc or are we going to continue to not accept there is a problem there?

And that is it in a nutshell..

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: The problem with the overly liberal approach is people lose confidence in authority and search for alternatives.
In the quest to stop a Nazi state they lay the conditions for one to begin.

I understand that you appear to think I have the views I do about stop and search because of a motivation to 'be liberal' for the sake of 'being liberal'. At the risk of getting too person I do also feel that it 'suits' you to think this. From my side of the table I would argue / claim that my views are not about 'being liberal' for the sake of it but are actually more about 'effectiveness' and pretty much despite my general 'liberal leanings'. To 'illustrate' this.

Putting aside for a moment potential abuse and working from a starting point that the police are trying to do a difficult job protecting all of us as per 'rules' established in as democratic and consensual manner as possible.

How you select who to stop and search.

Option 1. Down to the common sense of individual police officers. Achieves a rate of around 1 in 3

Option 2. An AI based computer system that uses sophisticated algorithms that look at gender, race, walking gait and more,that identifies people by facial recognition, scans their facebook posts, looks at their Tesco clubcard records and what they buy and spend, their bank records and on and on. Achieves a rate 10 in 1 , or 100 in 1.

Of these two I would be happier with option 2 ahead of option 1, not because it is more 'liberal' but because it is more effective. My view I would claim is more 'effectiveist' than 'liberal' per se. Yes I would also need there to be 'protections' against abuse of such a powerful system but if these could be achieved to my satisfaction then its option 2 for me.

On the issue of 'shoes bombs and old ladies'.

Again I am driven by 'effectiveness' rather than 'liberalism' I would claim. I do suspect that some measures put in place at airports are driven more from a need for politicians to create an impression that something is done regardless of it it actually is effective. (is that a PC need ?). I also suspect that making 'old ladies' take their shoes off, as far as that is an effective means of preventing acts, is less about 'being PC' and more to do with the nature of such acts only needing one in million or 100 million for the consequences to be disastrous. If airports were to never make old ladies take their shoes off, then terrorist would know that they could achieve their aims as long as they can find a suitable old lady.

turtle wrote:

It is this tip toeing around a problem that led to the epidemic of child abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale etc etc or are we going to continue to not accept there is a problem there?

And that is it in a nutshell..

I agree there is a 'problem'. I disagree (to some degree and probably not as much as appears) about what can and should be done about it.

Enjoyingthesun. I am one of the 80 year olds you mention going on holiday, I have two replacement knees so I set the security off at the airport, I have had to go through the full body scanner frisked three times and take my shoes off on more than one occasioneven though I show them the scars on my knees.

erol wrote:

turtle wrote:

It is this tip toeing around a problem that led to the epidemic of child abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale etc etc or are we going to continue to not accept there is a problem there?

And that is it in a nutshell..

I agree there is a 'problem'. I disagree (to some degree and probably not as much as appears) about what can and should be done about it.

Well I think we can all agree that getting knives off the street might be a good way to cut it down?
Then how do we get the knives off the street?
The amnesties don't work, if you want to carry a knife then you wont give it up. Hug a hoodie I don't think is proving very effective.

So firstly the police have to find the knives and secondly they have to confiscate them and thirdly they have to discourage people from carrying them.
I think the only way they can find the knives is to search for them.
Discouraging people to carry them is two pronged, decent sentences will discourage some and safer streets will discourage others who carry them for safety.
Now you could bury me under statistics as to how effective stop and search is but I can't think of another possibility to find the knives and the carriers of them.
I'm sure it could be proved that using a length of hosepipe isn't the most effective way of putting out a huge fire but we haven't got much else.

woodspeckie wrote:Enjoyingthesun. I am one of the 80 year olds you mention going on holiday, I have two replacement knees so I set the security off at the airport, I have had to go through the full body scanner frisked three times and take my shoes off on more than one occasioneven though I show them the scars on my knees.

Maybe chant Allah Akbar if they search a 25 year old Muslim lad in full Islamic robes in front of you?
They might have filled their quota of one in two.

erol wrote:
How you select who to stop and search.

Option 1. Down to the common sense of individual police officers. Achieves a rate of around 1 in 3

Option 2. An AI based computer system that uses sophisticated algorithms that look at gender, race, walking gait and more,that identifies people by facial recognition, scans their facebook posts, looks at their Tesco clubcard records and what they buy and spend, their bank records and on and on. Achieves a rate 10 in 1 , or 100 in 1.

Of these two I would be happier with option 2 ahead of option 1, not because it is more 'liberal' but because it is more effective.

Random works well.
If you get caught you get a decent chunk of time in prison. Basic economics, incentives encourage, decentives discourage.
So if you know that there is a fair chance you might be searched and if caught with a knife you get five years then you won't carry one. Let's not overthink this, we aren't dealing with geniuses here.

Option 2 is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But if we want to stroke our chins for the next ten years ignoring there is a problem and designing algorithms it's perfect. I can see a flaw though. What if the computer decides as it might that the police should target 8 black kids in every 10 searches? Then the liberals will say the information put in it has been corrupted.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Option 2 is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Kids getting stabbed and killed in the streets is a 'nut' ? Sounds a bit 'liberal' to me

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:But if we want to stroke our chins for the next ten years ignoring there is a problem and designing algorithms it's perfect.

The point of my 'two options' was more to try and demonstrate why I think my views on stop and search are not a result of me trying to be liberal for the sake of being liberal, having said that I would also suggest that such systems would not take decades to put in place (though protection against abuse is a more difficult problem) . They exist in part and to degrees in various forms already and they will only increasingly become easier to develop and deploy over time.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I can see a flaw though. What if the computer decides as it might that the police should target 8 black kids in every 10 searches? Then the liberals will say the information put in it has been corrupted.

Someone 'stopped and searched' is either guilty of something or not. If for every 100 people stopped 99 are guilty of something, what could the 'liberals' complain about ?

Can I ask you EnjoyingTheSun if you have ever personally been stopped and searched ? Not pulled over whilst driving. Not had a policeman knock on your door and say 'there has been a stabbing / robbery / whatever in the vicinity and ask if you have seen or heard anything. I mean had a policeman come up to you whilst you were walking down the street and say to you 'excuse me sir but I would like to search you please, could you turn out your pockets and open your briefcase for me' ?

Anyway on a slightly lighter note and for a blast from the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

erol wrote:
Can I ask you EnjoyingTheSun if you have ever personally been stopped and searched ? Not pulled over whilst driving. Not had a policeman knock on your door and say 'there has been a stabbing / robbery / whatever in the vicinity and ask if you have seen or heard anything. I mean had a policeman come up to you whilst you were walking down the street and say to you 'excuse me sir but I would like to search you please, could you turn out your pockets and open your briefcase for me' ?

As a teenager in Hackney more times than I care to recall. Not always at the most convenient time either
Also been clumped in the back of a black maria.
As an old fart not so much, guess I don't fit the demographic.
Trust me I'm not a huge fan of the police but now I'm getting older and more vulnerable I feel safer with them in my corner than a bearded university sociology lecturer telling me statistically crime is going down.

Don’t you think on smaller scale it’s any better here in kktc the murder of the gc found in Arapkoy . Stabbings ,Shotguns never heard of before I could go on and on everything is so corrupt here we all came here to get away from all this it’s so sad.

So Erol...back to the original post...what would you suggest will be an effective deterrent to this situation and how would you deal with a problem like this?

turtle wrote:So Erol...back to the original post...what would you suggest will be an effective deterrent to this situation and how would you deal with a problem like this?

I did admit in my first post "I have no 'answers". That is not a call to do nothing just an admission that I do not know what to do. Try things by all means if the 'price' in widest sense is low. I would have no objection for example on tightening up on the sale and marketing of 'combat knives'. Do a search on that on amazon.co.uk and it is not a pretty sight. But honestly I do not think doing so will make much or any difference. You can hurt someone pretty badly with a steak knife. With a pencil. I wish I did have answers but I do not.

Not trying to put you on the spot Erol but it does frustrate me and a lot of other people when the Liberals in our society will not entertain or accept that problems like this need some serious action to stamp it out and if that means a bit of annoyance to law abiding public then if successful I am confident that the odd interruption to their daily life will be accepted without too much PC posturing.

It does frustrate me (a lot) that the PC lobby ( a small minority by the way) seems to inflict their way of life on the many of us that simply want to put right the injustices that are now happening in our lives on a daily basis....and they seem to get their own way everytime,... very dangerous precedence in my opinion.

Prior to moving here in 2005, I worked for the Met, was based in the Control room @ Lewisham Borough , Statistics and facts showed that in Lewisham Borough (Lewisham,Deptford,Catford + Sydenham ) 90% of street crime was carried out by "Those from a diverse ethnicity", around 2003-2004 , we carried out an anti street robbery initiative , flooding the streets with extra bodies, TSG etc with targeted stop and search on known suspects, plenty of arrests were made, knives and drugs taken off the streets and (for a few days after) street robberies slashed to an all time low.
The PC brigade stuck their nose in and deemed the Operation a failure as we hadn't stopped a proportionate number of Caucasians (despite the statistics proving which ethnicity carried out most offences).any sane person that spoke out against this was made aware that "their card was marked ".

ttoli wrote: plenty of arrests were made, knives and drugs taken off the streets and (for a few days after) street robberies slashed to an all time low.
The PC brigade stuck their nose in and deemed the Operation a failure as we hadn't stopped a proportionate number of Caucasians (despite the statistics proving which ethnicity carried out most offences).any sane person that spoke out against this was made aware that "their card was marked ".

I'm sure the Guardian and the like could disprove all what you say with statistics.

turtle wrote:Not trying to put you on the spot Erol but it does frustrate me and a lot of other people when the Liberals in our society will not entertain or accept that problems like this need some serious action to stamp it out and if that means a bit of annoyance to law abiding public then if successful I am confident that the odd interruption to their daily life will be accepted without too much PC posturing.

As to a large degree I find 'your' apparent certainty frustrating. Certainty about what you think. Certainty about what 'a lot of other people' think. Certainty about what I think and why I think it. Certainty about how much increased use of stop and search will reduce young people getting killed and injured by 'knife crime'. Certainty that the only negative consequences of a massive increase in the use of stop and search would be a 'bit of annoyance' to law abiding citizens. Probably most of all your certainty that there exists a small set of people, this undefined 'PC lobby', that are able to and do impose their wants and desires on society at large and against a clear and defined greater will of society in general, in some kind of secret, underhand, nefarious and undemocratic way.

My personal view, which is nothing more that that. No claims of it being the 'right view'. No claims of it being the view of 'most people' or 'a lot of other people', My personal view ,is that this notion of a 'PC lobby' that dominates and controls and shapes our lives and how we live and have to live, against some common and clearly known 'collective will' is in fact a construct and a fiction with little or no link to objective reality. A powerful fiction, that fulfils very fundamental human 'needs', like the need to have simple answers to difficult questions, the need to be able to blame someone or something other than ourselves for woes, real or perceived and other needs besides. A fiction none the less, for me.

If I go back to the original post of this thread and the question "who should take responsibility" then the reply for me has to be 'all of us'.

erol wrote:
this undefined 'PC lobby', that are able to and do impose their wants and desires on society at large and against a clear and defined greater will of society in general, in some kind of secret, underhand, nefarious and undemocratic way.

Surely the consistant attempts by remainers to overturn/re-run the Brexit referendum would be an example of a minority, no matter how large, imposing their wants and desires on the greater will of society in general, in an undemocratic way?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

erol wrote:
this undefined 'PC lobby', that are able to and do impose their wants and desires on society at large and against a clear and defined greater will of society in general, in some kind of secret, underhand, nefarious and undemocratic way.

Surely the consistant attempts by remainers to overturn/re-run the Brexit referendum would be an example of a minority, no matter how large, imposing their wants and desires on the greater will of society in general, in an undemocratic way?

Not to my mind. That you suggest such only leads me to start considering if 'any individual or group of individuals that I disagree with on any particular issue' is not a more accurate definition as to how terms like 'PC lobby' are used rather than a definition along the lines of 'a small and covert group of people pushing their own agenda by subversive and underhand means and exerting an influence far greater than their numbers alone would allow other than for the use of subversive and underhand means'

Never mind my "Certainties" Erol,... the above post 41 seems to me to be Factual but totally ignored by your goodself.....Funny that Eh

erol wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:

erol wrote:
this undefined 'PC lobby', that are able to and do impose their wants and desires on society at large and against a clear and defined greater will of society in general, in some kind of secret, underhand, nefarious and undemocratic way.

Surely the consistant attempts by remainers to overturn/re-run the Brexit referendum would be an example of a minority, no matter how large, imposing their wants and desires on the greater will of society in general, in an undemocratic way?

Not to my mind. That you suggest such only leads me to start considering if 'any individual or group of individuals that I disagree with on any particular issue' is not a more accurate definition as to how terms like 'PC lobby' are used rather than a definition along the lines of 'a small and covert group of people pushing their own agenda by subversive and underhand means and exerting an influence far greater than their numbers alone would allow other than for the use of subversive and underhand means'

Can't get more democratic than a vote of all.
If you lose and consistantly try to get a re-run or try to ensure that parliament of 650 people can somehow overule the will of society at large then I'd call that undemocratic.
I do note that the hard left, which I don't accuse you of being a member, version of democracy means democracy of the committed rather than the more general definition.

I wouldn't necessarily totally lay it at the door of the PC brigade but the tactics are similar.

My problem with the left is for the most part it is followed by those who are naive but essentially good natured and kind.
After all socialism, even communism, in it's essence is a wonderful system.
Unfortunately it doesn't work in the real world and has been hijacked by the more cynical undemocratic hard left.
Corbyn has spent his entire career voting against his own party and the left applaud him and rightly say it is important to hear different views. Now they are in charge of the Labour party any differing views are threatened with deselection. Democratic or sheer hypocracy?

When/If the hard left finally manage to undermine the current system they will make stop and search look like community policing, anyone who doesn't realise that is naive.

turtle wrote:Never mind my "Certainties" Erol,... the above post 41 seems to me to be Factual but totally ignored by your goodself.....Funny that Eh

You are right that I actively chose to ignore the post. There was much in it that I had views on and a desire to comment on but but chose not to do so primarily because I came to a judgement that here on this forum was not a suitable place to do so. Now you have 'called me out' on this decision. So I will comment.

I do not agree that what is stated in the post is clearly and undoubtedly 'factual' with the certainty that you do. The post creates a certainty between an effect (such operations were not repeated in a short space of time) and a 'cause' (pc brigade sticking their noses in). The certainty of the truth of this cause and effect relationship warrants critical consideration imo. It might be true or it might not be true. I am not suggestion that the poster does not believe it to be true (one of the reason I declined to share my views earlier). For me to accept 'as fact' that the operation was not quickly repeated was because the 'PC brigade stuck their nose in' I would have to have more than just the expressed perception of ttoli (again this not person to him and again why I did not respond earlier). How exactly does this 'sticking of noses in' work such that it can be the determining factor on what police operation are or are not run on a given day, week or year? Was there a 'storm' of protest in the press following the operation that led to the police person that ordered the sweep to decide to not order or approve any subsequent ones ? If so is the fault with that person or those who were involved in creating the 'storm' ? Is such a reaction to 'change their minds' by the person who makes such decision as a result of the 'PC brigade sticking their noses in' part of a normal functioning social democracy or the subversion of it ? I have similar question around the 'certain' truth that the operation was deemed a failure simply because it led to the arrest of too many black and too few white ones. Is there anything tangible that supports this 'certain truth' beyond ttolis personal impressiopn ? Any report written anywhere that says this ? Maybe there is and if there is I would certainly be more than willing to look at such and consider it. But to just take the claim as 'certain truth' based on ttolis post is not something I am comfortable with (again this nothing personal against ttoli, their honesty or integrity and again why I shied away from commenting in the first instance).

Even if I put aside all of this and accept that the operation was stopped by a 'PC brigade sticking their noses in' because it led to the arrest of 'too many black suspects vs white ones'. I still have questions about what if the PC brigade had not done this. How frequently would such operations have to run such that they have a long term impact - long term meaning the declines in crime produced by the operation are sustained without the need for such operations to be repeated or the frequency of them could be ever extended over time ? How much of any long term effect, if there is one, would represent people in that area with criminal intent deciding that such was 'not worth it' vs them just moving to a different area to continue their criminal activities ? If in order to maintain the decrease in crime rates seen as a result of this operation requires them to be run repeatedly in an ongoing fashion and across multiple jurisdictions, then would such have any impacts on society other than just the reduced crime rate. If so what are those impacts ? That the 'questions' ttolis post raises in my mind are many, complex and quite possibly without clear cut answers does not for me make them any less valid as questions but does and did lead me to question if this was a suitable place to ask them.

It does feel to me that my views are seen by some as inherently dogmatic. Yet my own perception of myself is that in any comparative sense vs those who see me this way I see myself as less dogmatic than them. Maybe this is true of all of us ?

I do feel that more often than not when someone blames something on the 'PC Brigade' in essence this is an expression of their frustration that society in general and on the whole has moved away and is increasingly moving away from their personal view of where it should be, rather than evidence of some actual 'PC Brigade' that exists and operates in any sort of coherent way.

As Maggie once said.... The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money”

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Can't get more democratic than a vote of all.

And in a democracy the option to vote again should never be prohibited for if it is then it is no longer a democracy. You can argue about 'how soon' but not imo about the principal that 'voting again' is as much a required part of democracy as voting in the first place is. We did vote in 1975 (after we were taken in to the EEC by a conservative government without a referendum).

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:My problem with the left is for the most part it is followed by those who are naive but essentially good natured and kind.
After all socialism, even communism, in it's essence is a wonderful system.

Somewhat patronising. I see a history of 'great men and women' who's commitment to ideals and willingness to make personal sacrifice in the name of those ideals has resulted in net positive legacies that have benefited and continue to benefit the human race. Not all 'from the left' but many. To name just a couple 'Mahatma Ghandi' and'Martin Luther King'. Too much 'of the left' for you perhaps ?