Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
Watson is interested in power. There is no advantage for Watson in Tigger-ing.
... unless he thinks that it will replace Labour, and is more to his advantage. (A machiavellian analysis).
Will it? No idea.
But sweet revenge if we have any Liberals who were there in 1920.
Agreed.
Really, anything could happen over the next year. The two major parties will probably retain their hegemony, but that is less certain now than at any time since the formation of the SDP.
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Decent list. I'd add the creepy claims to progressiveness in an effort to convince the gullible that they're not the same old Tories. Of course the last two and a half years have been a great cleansing corrective to that auld bollocks.
Possibly similar to creepy claims from Nationalists that they are inclusive, with their efforts to convince the gullible that they are not really the nasty, hate filled bigots that we all know they are!
Pavlov's yapper kicks off again.
You can probably get some therapy based treatment for this OCD thing you have, if the Tories haven't reamed out the budget for your mental health trust.
Re union comment - I know you love your chips up there, so you must be very popular
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
+1
As a teenager, becoming aware of/interested in politics for the first time I heard about Section 28 and thought "how can anyone be so f**king spiteful". Since I reached voting age I have voted Labour, Lib Dem, Green on one occasion but I swore as a 14 year old I would never, ever vote Tory because of that one section. Personally I don't give a monkeys about fox hunting, and am ambivalent about renationalising the railway, but there's enough else on @OnlyLivingBoy 's list to fill anyone's list of reasons, particularly Ireland and welfare reform for me.
Section 28 was an abomination. It's gone and now the Tory Party are largely ok with LBGT rights. I cannot speak for their membership, of course.
I note with some irony the Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood has been campaigning against LGBT awareness lesson in schools.
Indeed. Section 28 was wrong but then it was a Tory PM who legalised gay marriage. So times have changed.
Marvellous work by Dave, and against a majority of his own mps as well.
Cameron announced the EU referendum the day before the first reading of the same-sex marriage bill in parliament.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
Can the BBC become even more pro Tory and pro the PM.
The desperate attempts to give her cover for her delusional comments on knife crime means we’ve reached rock bottom . We now await Laura K to give us her daily May is a martyr battling for Britain guff .
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
Can the BBC become even more pro Tory and pro the PM.
The desperate attempts to give her cover for her delusional comments on knife crime means we’ve reached rock bottom . We now await Laura K to give us her daily May is a martyr battling for Britain guff .
Policing is one of many elements that influence the level of knife crime.
Social aspects, modern lifestyle, influences from media, games, films and peer groups, drugs (using, buying and selling are all potential drivers), education, respect, family, austerity and prospects can all be a part of the cause.
I obviously don't take every utterance of Diane Abbott as verbatim, but the assault on Corbyn seems to have been downplayed if her account is correct; unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any video or pictures of it. The Met wouldn't charge someone with assault by beating if it was a simple 'chucked egg' so I can understand Corbynites ire at the way this incident has been reported. We await the court case on the 19th March anyway.
Congratulations on holding a grievance for so long that everyone involved in the policy is long-since retired, if not dead. Perhaps you might like to add opposition to the Great Reform Act too?
I'm also still holding that grievance. It's not just the policy, it's the kind of person you'd have to be to support the policy. People who joined the party as teenagers or students at that time are generally in their 40s, 50s and 60s now, ie they're in charge of the country, and I reckon you can draw a straight line from that to Windrush, Go Home vans and the whole brexit shitshow. Note that two out of three of the TIG defectors are people who joined the party after the era of Section 28 and Hang Mandela was gone.
This is what makes the Labour anti-Semitism problems so bad, because even after you've hosed out the specific behaviour at issue, you're still left with a whole generation of the kind of people who thought it was OK.
I disagree with the central assertion were Labour led by a centrist they would be miles ahead in the polls. If there were no Brexit, perhaps but if a centrist Labour leader backed remain that would alienate the core of Labour leavers still further. The divisions in Labour on a second vote would still exist and would be causing the centrist leader a lot of problems.
Is that asserted in the thread header?
I thought that the implication was clear that it is Corbyn's personal failings of leadership that are holding Labour back, rather than a failure of strategic positioning.
While Corbyn's election as Labour leader was the biggest boost to left-win politics in Britain for decades, it is increasingly clear that every day he remains in post damages the credibility of left-wing politics in general.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
This falls down as in any area of the nation as there are a tranche of non sensible people in every area, who will complain for a reason that suits the agenda they wield.
I grew up through the Blair years. I resent Labour somewhat for various things, in particular the constant fiddling with the educational system, tuition fees (albeit I dodged most of the impact of that one), the collapse of the graduate job market just as I was finishing university and the extended cuts to public services ever since then as a result of financial mismanagement in their third term, and the vastly inferior pension I'll eventually end up on due to Brown taxing final salary schemes out of existence. Also Iraq; why the hell not.
But I don't think I'd say I'd never vote for them because of any of that. I'd probably be unlikely to, simply because I can't see the reasons now why a future Labour government wouldn't make similar (or worse) mistakes, particularly on the economy. And I know plenty of lifelong Tories from my parents' generation who voted for Blair at least once because he was simply a better option at the time, despite memories of the 70s.
Presumably today's Labour activists would argue (with some justification) that today's leadership opposed, or would have opposed, nearly everything Blair and Brown did between 1997 and 2010. But surely the same is true for Cameron/Osbourne and most of the lists people are posting from the 80s? No one seriously believes that today's Conservative party would reintroduce Section 28, or anything close to it. And most of the rest of the list is arguable stuff that a Labour government would have had to deal with similarly (hostile environment started under Labour; Milliband's proposed cuts in 2015 weren't far away from Cameron's).
Are Tories just less angry and resentful than Labour supporters? That doesn't feel right. Certainly they're no less obsessed with history. Must just be a tribal thing.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
"No sensible person"
There's your problem: many people (and I'm not including you in this) lack any sense when it comes to such things.
And why just differentiate between white and black? Why not have to ensure that 50% of all searches are of females? And surely the elderly should be searched as well, to show the police are not discriminating against the young?
I understand the annoyances someone gets from being repeatedly stopped by the police- an Asian friend of mine suffered from it. However it seems an obvious (perhaps too much so) way forward.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Decent list. I'd add the creepy claims to progressiveness in an effort to convince the gullible that they're not the same old Tories. Of course the last two and a half years have been a great cleansing corrective to that auld bollocks.
Possibly similar to creepy claims from Nationalists that they are inclusive, with their efforts to convince the gullible that they are not really the nasty, hate filled bigots that we all know they are!
Pavlov's yapper kicks off again.
You can probably get some therapy based treatment for this OCD thing you have, if the Tories haven't reamed out the budget for your mental health trust.
Re union comment - I know you love your chips up there, so you must be very popular
Keep up the English classes, but do remind your teacher that comprehensibility is just as important as comprehension.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
Can the BBC become even more pro Tory and pro the PM.
The desperate attempts to give her cover for her delusional comments on knife crime means we’ve reached rock bottom . We now await Laura K to give us her daily May is a martyr battling for Britain guff .
No different to Rachel Sylvester in The Times where every article channels the shade of George Osborne. It’s deeply tedious.
It took Labour 13 years for centrists to regain control of the party after Foot was elected in 1980 and Militant gained influence
No, it took 3 years. Foot was elected leader in 1980, he left office in 1983, to be succeeded by Kinnock.
It took the SDP much longer to break the mould. In fact we're still waiting.
(I note it is acknowledged Tories who are so enthusiastic about the Labour moderates splitting. I wonder why ... I wonder why)
Just because they'd be happy doesn't mean it's not also a good idea. If the only reason someone wont split is because of hatred for another what a depressing situation that is.
I hope they both split more, but I think Watson and co have seen off the Tiggers. Those that are left see it as a fight to have.
Maybe a fight which they all but know will be lost and which will help eventually prepare the ground for a much bigger split.
The case for a split is that Labour is confirmed irredemably as an extremist party and as such its electoral destiny will follow the path trod earlier by the Parti Communiste Francaise.
I really doubt that is right. Nothing is irredeemable in politics.
The reason why Corby's position was strengthened was because he was electorally more successful than anyone ever imagined (albeit in a very odd election against a very poor opponent). Corby deserves credit for that.
But another GE defeat would see Corby in his allotment.
For sure, his successor is not going to be another Blair (thank God), but it will be someone like Thornberry, or ..... even Watson.
Have you not considered the possibility that Corbyn might again significantly exceed expectations in an election campaign?
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
"No sensible person"
There's your problem: many people (and I'm not including you in this) lack any sense when it comes to such things.
And why just differentiate between white and black? Why not have to ensure that 50% of all searches are of females? And surely the elderly should be searched as well, to show the police are not discriminating against the young?
I understand the annoyances someone gets from being repeatedly stopped by the police- an Asian friend of mine suffered from it. However it seems an obvious (perhaps too much so) way forward.
Back in the late 50's, as a top teen/early 20's young white male, I was stopped and searched two or three times when out late at night. I found all of therm intrusive and offensive, and one particularly so. I was breathalysed about five or six years ago by a policeman who was clearly very disappointed that the result was negative.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
"No sensible person"
There's your problem: many people (and I'm not including you in this) lack any sense when it comes to such things.
And why just differentiate between white and black? Why not have to ensure that 50% of all searches are of females? And surely the elderly should be searched as well, to show the police are not discriminating against the young?
I understand the annoyances someone gets from being repeatedly stopped by the police- an Asian friend of mine suffered from it. However it seems an obvious (perhaps too much so) way forward.
I grew up in London in the 80s and 90s and the only time I have been stopped and searched was when I went to an environmental protest in Kent.
Why was this? Was it because the police could tell that I was a harmless middle-class kid?
If that is the case why are they unable to make that judgement for harmless middle-class black kids?
If it was because I was white, then the problem isn't targeted stop-and-search, but badly targeted stop-and-search, because there are surely lots of white kids walking around with knives.
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Decent list. I'd add the creepy claims to progressiveness in an effort to convince the gullible that they're not the same old Tories. Of course the last two and a half years have been a great cleansing corrective to that auld bollocks.
Possibly similar to creepy claims from Nationalists that they are inclusive, with their efforts to convince the gullible that they are not really the nasty, hate filled bigots that we all know they are!
Pavlov's yapper kicks off again.
You can probably get some therapy based treatment for this OCD thing you have, if the Tories haven't reamed out the budget for your mental health trust.
Re union comment - I know you love your chips up there, so you must be very popular
Keep up the English classes, but do remind your teacher that comprehensibility is just as important as comprehension.
But where he might be wrong is in the implied assumption that Brexit will dominate a general election campaign. Beyond the first week or so , I do not expect that to be true.
It won't. Police very rarely catch criminals in the act.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
It's not a nice answer, it's not an easy answer, and it's only a part of what should be done. But it might be one part of the solution.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
"No sensible person"
There's your problem: many people (and I'm not including you in this) lack any sense when it comes to such things.
And why just differentiate between white and black? Why not have to ensure that 50% of all searches are of females? And surely the elderly should be searched as well, to show the police are not discriminating against the young?
I understand the annoyances someone gets from being repeatedly stopped by the police- an Asian friend of mine suffered from it. However it seems an obvious (perhaps too much so) way forward.
I grew up in London in the 80s and 90s and the only time I have been stopped and searched was when I went to an environmental protest in Kent.
Why was this? Was it because the police could tell that I was a harmless middle-class kid?
If that is the case why are they unable to make that judgement for harmless middle-class black kids?
If it was because I was white, then the problem isn't targeted stop-and-search, but badly targeted stop-and-search, because there are surely lots of white kids walking around with knives.
The only times I have been stopped was with an Asian friend in a Midlands town, late at night. I was bemused, he was polite but livid afterwards - whilst not a common occurrence, it had happened enough times to be annoying.
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Half of those are positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
"No sensible person"
There's your problem: many people (and I'm not including you in this) lack any sense when it comes to such things.
And why just differentiate between white and black? Why not have to ensure that 50% of all searches are of females? And surely the elderly should be searched as well, to show the police are not discriminating against the young?
I understand the annoyances someone gets from being repeatedly stopped by the police- an Asian friend of mine suffered from it. However it seems an obvious (perhaps too much so) way forward.
I grew up in London in the 80s and 90s and the only time I have been stopped and searched was when I went to an environmental protest in Kent.
Why was this? Was it because the police could tell that I was a harmless middle-class kid?
If that is the case why are they unable to make that judgement for harmless middle-class black kids?
If it was because I was white, then the problem isn't targeted stop-and-search, but badly targeted stop-and-search, because there are surely lots of white kids walking around with knives.
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Half of those are positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Perhaps, but which half? Like spending money on advertising. Half is wasted, but which half?
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Half of those are positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Perhaps, but which half? Like spending money on advertising. Half is wasted, but which half?
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
Or they were bored.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
According to someone in my village, some kids are carrying them fairly routinely - allegedly as a 'defensive' aid, but mostly to look cool and hard to their compatriots. It's help stamp that out for a start.
I also wonder if your assumption is correct - how many of these crimes are utterly premeditated: go home, get a knife, come back and stab someone - and how many are because of an argument that got out of hand, and became fatal because someone happened to have a knife?
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
A forerunner to Farage's Brexit march.
We were very drunk. At least I was; as a good Muslim, my friend was only quite drunk.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
According to someone in my village, some kids are carrying them fairly routinely - allegedly as a 'defensive' aid, but mostly to look cool and hard to their compatriots. It's help stamp that out for a start.
I also wonder if your assumption is correct - how many of these crimes are utterly premeditated: go home, get a knife, come back and stab someone - and how many are because of an argument that got out of hand, and became fatal because someone happened to have a knife?
A lot of knife crime is unpremeditated, so reducing the incidence of people carrying knives would have an effect.
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
Or they were bored.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
How many stabbing are planned though? Pretty sure a good number are opportunistic, e.g. that ****'s on the wrong turf, get him.
Extraordinary to see the Prime Minister's comments about the reduction in Police numbers not being related to rising knife crime not being more widely discussed. I suspect if you asked most people how they would combat crime the answer might be more Police on the streets (and more stop and search powers arguably).
I thought Stop and Search is racist!
This is a big question interviewers should ask Labour MPs (rightly) complaining about the knife crime figures. If you want more police, how will they stop the crimes without targeted stop-and-search ?
I think that evidence-based stop-and-search passes muster. ie. target it in areas of high knife-crime. If those areas are say 50% white and 50% black, then as long as half the people that the police stop are white, no sensible person is going to play the racism card.
"No sensible person"
There's your problem: many people (and I'm not including you in this) lack any sense when it comes to such things.
And why just differentiate between white and black? Why not have to ensure that 50% of all searches are of females? And surely the elderly should be searched as well, to show the police are not discriminating against the young?
I understand the annoyances someone gets from being repeatedly stopped by the police- an Asian friend of mine suffered from it. However it seems an obvious (perhaps too much so) way forward.
I grew up in London in the 80s and 90s and the only time I have been stopped and searched was when I went to an environmental protest in Kent.
Why was this? Was it because the police could tell that I was a harmless middle-class kid?
If that is the case why are they unable to make that judgement for harmless middle-class black kids?
If it was because I was white, then the problem isn't targeted stop-and-search, but badly targeted stop-and-search, because there are surely lots of white kids walking around with knives.
You must know you're over simplifying
I'm a mathematician. Simplifying is what we do, and you *have* to simplify things to an extent to make them tractable.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
This is utter tosh! Carrying the kind of knife that makes up the collection of seized knives regularly displayed is a criminal offence even if the carrier claims he uses it to pick his nose. Why would you carry something like that not knowing that, if you got caught, you're nicked. The punishment should be more severe - my wife thinks they should lose a finger every time but I wouldn't go that far.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
According to someone in my village, some kids are carrying them fairly routinely - allegedly as a 'defensive' aid, but mostly to look cool and hard to their compatriots. It's help stamp that out for a start.
I also wonder if your assumption is correct - how many of these crimes are utterly premeditated: go home, get a knife, come back and stab someone - and how many are because of an argument that got out of hand, and became fatal because someone happened to have a knife?
A lot of knife crime is unpremeditated, so reducing the incidence of people carrying knives would have an effect.
I’d say it is, but usually hair-trigger.
Something as simple as looking at someone or being believed to have looked at someone - pumped high on testosterone, insecurity and driven by peer pressure to look for a challenge to face down - can be enough. Or laughing near them (misinterpreted as at them) or making a comment or asking a question.
I’m not sure extra police numbers really tackles the root causes of that.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
This is utter tosh! Carrying the kind of knife that makes up the collection of seized knives regularly displayed is a criminal offence even if the carrier claims he uses it to pick his nose. Why would you carry something like that not knowing that, if you got caught, you're nicked. The punishment should be more severe - my wife thinks they should lose a finger every time but I wouldn't go that far.
There's also the matter of the source of these knives. It is, apparently quite easy to buy quite nasty devices over the counter in spite of it being theoretically illegal.
Mr. Royale, yeah, but police numbers do comfort the public, and attacking cuts is convenient for the Opposition and police (we'd be doing so much better if only the politicians would give us more money etc).
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
Or they were bored.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
The available breakdown of involvement in crimes committed with knives is not subject to the selective bias you mention.
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
Or they were bored.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
I see my old borough is top of something. And 58.3% related to drugs - you could rename the plod the drug enforcement agency and it would be more accurate.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
How many stabbing are planned though? Pretty sure a good number are opportunistic, e.g. that ****'s on the wrong turf, get him.
That would imply they knew enough about them to know they’re on the wrong turf. That’s the case in gang on gang turf wars but quite a bit of this latest spree seems to just be teenagers attacking teenagers.
I’m far from safe but I suspect if I was walking in a public park in London in a suit during the day, as a professional, I suspect I’d be at a lower risk of being randomly stabbed by youths.
If I was a teenager with casual clothes I’d be very scared at the moment and might not go out alone at all.
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wonder whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wander whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
Always best to be careful what you say online. If you're going to insult someone, make sure you don't defame their character is my golden rule.
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wander whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
Always best to be careful what you say online. If you're going to insult someone, make sure you don't defame their character is my golden rule.
+1
Best to be polite, even if you disagree profoundly.
it's not about catching them in the act of committing an active attack with a knife: it is to catch them carrying a knife, which can then be disposed of, and the carrying offence dealt with.
If you are planning on stabbing someone you don't need to carry a knife all the time, only at the time of the attack. So I suppose you might catch the idiot carrying a knife all the time, but you are less likely to catch people planning on using knives to commit violent crimes.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
This is utter tosh! Carrying the kind of knife that makes up the collection of seized knives regularly displayed is a criminal offence even if the carrier claims he uses it to pick his nose. Why would you carry something like that not knowing that, if you got caught, you're nicked. The punishment should be more severe - my wife thinks they should lose a finger every time but I wouldn't go that far.
There's also the matter of the source of these knives. It is, apparently quite easy to buy quite nasty devices over the counter in spite of it being theoretically illegal.
There are some pretty lethal kitchen knives too but cutting that source would be very difficult. However, I agree that, symbolically at least, some attempt should be made to take out the obviously lethal weapons designed only to kill or maim.
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wander whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
Always best to be careful what you say online. If you're going to insult someone, make sure you don't defame their character is my golden rule.
Accusing someone of being a paedophile could result in that person being assaulted.
Mr. Royale, yeah, but police numbers do comfort the public, and attacking cuts is convenient for the Opposition and police (we'd be doing so much better if only the politicians would give us more money etc).
Mr. Royale, yeah, but police numbers do comfort the public, and attacking cuts is convenient for the Opposition and police (we'd be doing so much better if only the politicians would give us more money etc).
It’s a simple (and expensive) answer to what is a complex problem.
What are these police going to do? Where will they be deployed? What mandate will they be given?
I expect the public think they’ll be out on the beat on every street corner and conducting random stop and search of every youth.
That’s very far from the case - they could be allocated all sorts of ways: replacing PCSOs on a 1:1 basis in some areas, doing more social visiting of troubled members of the community, investigating old cases, reinforcing existing squad cars or spending more time monitoring social media or reviewing CCTV for evidence of traffic violations or just increasing salaries and pensions.
We shouldn’t be surprised by the police using a crisis headline for more resources but this shouldn’t be done uncritically either.
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wonder whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
I don’t think he’s rich, no. Pete North is the son of Richard North who wrote the Brexit ur-text, “The Great Deception” with Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker.
Pete himself is no slouch, he’s an incredibly well-informed advocate for an EEA Brexit.
However he also has the tendency to fly off the handle and turn abusive to his critics.
Mr. Royale, yeah, but police numbers do comfort the public, and attacking cuts is convenient for the Opposition and police (we'd be doing so much better if only the politicians would give us more money etc).
"More money" is the cure for everything, which it would be if it grew on trees.
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wonder whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
I don’t think he’s rich, no. Pete North is the son of Richard North who wrote the Brexit ur-text, “The Great Deception” with Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker.
Pete himself is no slouch, he’s an incredibly well-informed advocate for an EEA Brexit.
However he also has the tendency to fly off the handle and turn abusive to his critics.
Reminds me of one or two on here.
Hmm. Thanks.
£20k plus costs.....??? double it??? That does seem penal. Doubt he'd get much on a crowdfunding basis, either.
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
Or they were bored.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
Mr. P, the use of language in that cartoon is the clunkiest I've seen since The Last Jedi.
I’ve never seen a cartoon of his that doesn’t make me cringe with embarrassment.
They are almost always crap. When it comes to newspaper cartoons there's Matt who is consistently good, a huge chasm, and then the rest, with Steve Bell being perhaps the worst.
Mr. Royale, yeah, but police numbers do comfort the public, and attacking cuts is convenient for the Opposition and police (we'd be doing so much better if only the politicians would give us more money etc).
I guess the solution is to do what the US do with funding speculative science and technology research: In their case military expenditure is politically bombproof, so they fund stuff as part of the military.
In Britain everyone wants more police, but actually stopping crime needs social workers and probation officers, so give the social workers and probation officers little helmets and make them part of the police.
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Half of those are positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Perhaps, but which half? Like spending money on advertising. Half is wasted, but which half?
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wander whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
Always best to be careful what you say online. If you're going to insult someone, make sure you don't defame their character is my golden rule.
I wonder if the bestselling author who called me a paedophile on here had that post removed in his great vanilla purge of everything gamey? Got a couple of big bills coming up.
I guess everyone has their own reasons. Here's my own personal list: Windrush scandal Go Home vans Cuts to school spending Destroying local services by cutting council funding by half The treatment of the miners The poll tax Testing the poll tax out in Scotland Section 28 Young Conservatives with hang Mandela badges Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher's voice Tory attitude towards Ireland Fox hunting Welfare reforms that have led directly to deaths Food banks Cutting taxes for people like me who already have plenty of money Boris Johnson and his garden bridge Privatised trains George Osborne's face
I'm sure I've missed loads and others will have their own greatest hits to add to the list.
Half of those are positive reasons to vote Conservative.
Perhaps, but which half? Like spending money on advertising. Half is wasted, but which half?
In Britain everyone wants more police, but actually stopping crime needs social workers and probation officers, so give the social workers and probation officers little helmets and make them part of the police.
Quite probably a better suggestion than anything we will hear from our political parties today.
Quite frankly, that's not a lot, even though costs are to be added. As the defendant didn't file a defence I wander whether he's a man of straw or rich enough to be 'not bothered'.
Always best to be careful what you say online. If you're going to insult someone, make sure you don't defame their character is my golden rule.
I wonder if the bestselling author who called me a paedophile on here had that post removed in his great vanilla purge of everything gamey? Got a couple of big bills coming up.
As far as I can tell, Fiona Onasanya can still vote in the House. Her vote may indeed may prove decisive in coming weeks.
If the government decided to introduce new laws relating to solicitors’ conduct, she could vote on those, which is pretty close to remarkable. In essence she could create laws for people that her conduct means that she’s unfit to being part of.
Even by the standards of laying, fraudulent, criminal MPs, that’s pretty remarkable..
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
Or they were bored.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
Or they were bored.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
It won't. Police very rarely catch criminals in the act.
When I lived in sarf Lundun, the police in a panda car did indeed catch two crims, in the act of walking our telly across the road to their house, one each end.
However...they were each charged with burglary. And only burglary. They each said that the other had gone into the house and come out with the telly. They were only helping. Because it couldn't be proved which of them had been in the house - a requirement for the charge of burglary - they both got off. No charge of receiving stolen goods, or conspiracy.
We were reduced to glaring at them across the street.
Comments
Hillary Clinton has ruled out a second US presidential run in 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47453302
Really, anything could happen over the next year.
The two major parties will probably retain their hegemony, but that is less certain now than at any time since the formation of the SDP.
And this way, she retains a certain amount of influence.
The desperate attempts to give her cover for her delusional comments on knife crime means we’ve reached rock bottom . We now await Laura K to give us her daily May is a martyr battling for Britain guff .
Social aspects, modern lifestyle, influences from media, games, films and peer groups, drugs (using, buying and selling are all potential drivers), education, respect, family, austerity and prospects can all be a part of the cause.
The Met wouldn't charge someone with assault by beating if it was a simple 'chucked egg' so I can understand Corbynites ire at the way this incident has been reported. We await the court case on the 19th March anyway.
This is what makes the Labour anti-Semitism problems so bad, because even after you've hosed out the specific behaviour at issue, you're still left with a whole generation of the kind of people who thought it was OK.
I thought that the implication was clear that it is Corbyn's personal failings of leadership that are holding Labour back, rather than a failure of strategic positioning.
While Corbyn's election as Labour leader was the biggest boost to left-win politics in Britain for decades, it is increasingly clear that every day he remains in post damages the credibility of left-wing politics in general.
But I don't think I'd say I'd never vote for them because of any of that. I'd probably be unlikely to, simply because I can't see the reasons now why a future Labour government wouldn't make similar (or worse) mistakes, particularly on the economy. And I know plenty of lifelong Tories from my parents' generation who voted for Blair at least once because he was simply a better option at the time, despite memories of the 70s.
Presumably today's Labour activists would argue (with some justification) that today's leadership opposed, or would have opposed, nearly everything Blair and Brown did between 1997 and 2010. But surely the same is true for Cameron/Osbourne and most of the lists people are posting from the 80s? No one seriously believes that today's Conservative party would reintroduce Section 28, or anything close to it. And most of the rest of the list is arguable stuff that a Labour government would have had to deal with similarly (hostile environment started under Labour; Milliband's proposed cuts in 2015 weren't far away from Cameron's).
Are Tories just less angry and resentful than Labour supporters? That doesn't feel right. Certainly they're no less obsessed with history. Must just be a tribal thing.
https://www.met.police.uk/sd/stats-and-data/met/stop-and-search-dashboard/
There's your problem: many people (and I'm not including you in this) lack any sense when it comes to such things.
And why just differentiate between white and black? Why not have to ensure that 50% of all searches are of females? And surely the elderly should be searched as well, to show the police are not discriminating against the young?
I understand the annoyances someone gets from being repeatedly stopped by the police- an Asian friend of mine suffered from it. However it seems an obvious (perhaps too much so) way forward.
I was breathalysed about five or six years ago by a policeman who was clearly very disappointed that the result was negative.
Why was this? Was it because the police could tell that I was a harmless middle-class kid?
If that is the case why are they unable to make that judgement for harmless middle-class black kids?
If it was because I was white, then the problem isn't targeted stop-and-search, but badly targeted stop-and-search, because there are surely lots of white kids walking around with knives.
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1102881223117025281
It's not a nice answer, it's not an easy answer, and it's only a part of what should be done. But it might be one part of the solution.
Applies to women as well, I expect.
Then again, stopping two 18-year old lads, walking along the edge of a dual carriageway at night, might have been seen as an opportunity to check our welfare as well!
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, are you collecting knives or trying to prevent violent crime? Of course the Police/Home Office might be entirely happy to go with the former, as it's a lot easier, and they can trumpet the number of stops, arrests, confiscated knives, and so on.
I do think there's a very strong risk of creating a cycle of confirmation bias with poorly targeted stop and search. You stop mainly non-white kids because of your bias. You find more knives from non-white kids (because you aren't stopping the white kids who are carrying knives). You have evidence that it's non-white kids who are carrying knives - so you are more likely to stop non-white kids.
It's not like we can expect officers on the beat to carry out a statistically accurate Bayesian calculation on this. And all the algorithms are being set up to make the same sort of mistakes - but then it will be computers making the decision so they must be right.
I also wonder if your assumption is correct - how many of these crimes are utterly premeditated: go home, get a knife, come back and stab someone - and how many are because of an argument that got out of hand, and became fatal because someone happened to have a knife?
I do not accept that I was simplifying too far.
Something as simple as looking at someone or being believed to have looked at someone - pumped high on testosterone, insecurity and driven by peer pressure to look for a challenge to face down - can be enough. Or laughing near them (misinterpreted as at them) or making a comment or asking a question.
I’m not sure extra police numbers really tackles the root causes of that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6772425/Outspoken-Brexit-critic-wins-20-000-damages-ex-UKIP-candidate-branded-paedophile.html
I’m far from safe but I suspect if I was walking in a public park in London in a suit during the day, as a professional, I suspect I’d be at a lower risk of being randomly stabbed by youths.
If I was a teenager with casual clothes I’d be very scared at the moment and might not go out alone at all.
The family or neighbourhood argument that turns into a stabbing is not likely to be stopped. That's if you like the "background level" of knife crime.
Best to be polite, even if you disagree profoundly.
What are these police going to do? Where will they be deployed? What mandate will they be given?
I expect the public think they’ll be out on the beat on every street corner and conducting random stop and search of every youth.
That’s very far from the case - they could be allocated all sorts of ways: replacing PCSOs on a 1:1 basis in some areas, doing more social visiting of troubled members of the community, investigating old cases, reinforcing existing squad cars or spending more time monitoring social media or reviewing CCTV for evidence of traffic violations or just increasing salaries and pensions.
We shouldn’t be surprised by the police using a crisis headline for more resources but this shouldn’t be done uncritically either.
Pete North is the son of Richard North who wrote the Brexit ur-text, “The Great Deception” with Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker.
Pete himself is no slouch, he’s an incredibly well-informed advocate for an EEA Brexit.
However he also has the tendency to fly off the handle and turn abusive to his critics.
Reminds me of one or two on here.
£20k plus costs.....??? double it??? That does seem penal. Doubt he'd get much on a crowdfunding basis, either.
In Britain everyone wants more police, but actually stopping crime needs social workers and probation officers, so give the social workers and probation officers little helmets and make them part of the police.
Even by the standards of laying, fraudulent, criminal MPs, that’s pretty remarkable..
However...they were each charged with burglary. And only burglary. They each said that the other had gone into the house and come out with the telly. They were only helping. Because it couldn't be proved which of them had been in the house - a requirement for the charge of burglary - they both got off. No charge of receiving stolen goods, or conspiracy.
We were reduced to glaring at them across the street.
You’re never going to stop people taking cocaine recreationally.
Take the industry out of criminal hands.