Knife crime: Should stronger stop and search powers be used?

The law should be about deterring and punishing criminals not ‘community relations’ which is beyond the polices purview.

Fact is that ‘minorities’ were safer under ‘racist and outdated’ modes of policing than they are now/ where liberal idiot politicians like Theresa May or Sajid Javid are more than happy for hundreds of poor people to be stabbed to death to prove how tolerant and inclusive they are, whilst they live in gated communities.

You had the last thread you wrote this on pulled. You are likely to get this one pulled too. Stopping black people because some black people carry knives isn't going to help anyone, just as stopping men because some men carry out crime isn't going to solve anything.

And you keep whittering on about liberalism. Victimising a section of a community simply because of the colour of their skin is racist. Plain and simple. And your rhetoric suggests to me that you are a racist. You would say I am a politically correct liberal snowflake. I'll take that. It is a million times better than being racist.

In order to police minorities, police need to form a relationship and trust with those minorities. Having people like baying at them to stop and arrest every black person in sight because some of them commit crime doesn't achieve any reduction in crime. That is why it is no longer done. Police need to be stopping people carrying knives. Not black people because some black people happen to commit crime.

One response to that would be targeting that demographic with stop and frisk. This could be considered racist but it would also stop them from being violently killed.

Because it is racist. The issue is people with knives. Most knife crime is committed by men. So please tell me what would be wrong with systematically stopping and frisking all men which includes you and I. How would you like it if you were stopped and searched by the police on a weekly basis? Do you not think you might start to feel victimised by the police for being stopped when you have done nothing wrong and the only thing they have to go by is the fact that you are a man and therefore potentially committing knife crime?

The reason stop and search was stopped was simply because it was ineffective. It didn't have a massive impact on reducing crime but did make people of ethic origin very fearful and untrusting of the police. If you want to tackle crime you need to treat everyone equally and attempt to challenge all crime regardless of who committed it or who it was committed against. If you start racially profiling offenders, you very quickly lose the trust of that community and at the end of the day, it is intelligence and trust that catch criminals, not dipping into the pond on the hope you get lucky.

Like I said before. I want to see evidence based practice in the criminal justice system. Not personal whims of what you or politicians think will be effective. You wouldn't take a remedy from Doctor CureSomeByChance if you had cancer because his mother swears by it. Yet that is the kind of interventions the criminal justice system uses. We do things because that is how it has always been done and feels right, regardless of the actual outcomes it gives.

Sure stop and frisk every man between 12-40 in London. That’s fine. It was ineffective was it? Well how come so many more people are dying now then?

I don't think either of us can answer that. To suggest that it is the direct result of stop and search being reduced would be foolish. That is the Daily Mail answer. The simple answer to a very complicated problem.

And no - if white wealthy men started getting stopped and search, there would be uproar.

The law should be about deterring and punishing criminals not ‘community relations’ which is beyond the polices purview.

Fact is that ‘minorities’ were safer under ‘racist and outdated’ modes of policing than they are now/ where liberal idiot politicians like Theresa May or Sajid Javid are more than happy for hundreds of poor people to be stabbed to death to prove how tolerant and inclusive they are, whilst they live in gated communities.

rightly so.. wealthy white men don't tend to stab people..

stop and searcb isnt the holy grail that some people want it to be, but its part of the equasion.

More officers on the street with a visable presence.. freely able to stop and search.. with fines for knife posession.. tyat would go a long way to so'ving the short term reaction side of the equasion.

get that done first, then as a society focus on the actual causes of knife crime as a long term solution.. poverty, lack of opertu ity, import of gang culture, no fathers etc...

I agree. But you can't pick off ethnic groups just because some people of that ethnic group happen to be committing crime.

you can, if that ethnic group is committing more crimes than other ethnic groups.. Same with gender, eye color, post-code, or any other method of differentiating people. If you have a situation where one group is commiting more crime, the most efficient and effective measure is to target preventative measures disproportionately at that group. To target preentative methods at all groups equally, despite their likelyhood to offend, is an enefficient method that will waste time and money - two things the police don't have at the moment.


White men commit crime. In Manchester most of the shootings are done by men who belong to white gangs.

Then I would 100% support the profiling of white-men in that area. Its the only logical way to make your policing more efficient

But I do not hear calls for stopping white men randomly and searching them for guns.

Probably more to do with the fact that its manchester, not london.. than black/white

Yet in your mind at least, it would be perfectly acceptable to stop black men.

IF you can statistically prove that in X area, X group have a greater problem with X crime - yes that minority should be targetted by preventative methods.

In this country we are very fortunate to have a system of innocent until proven guilty and that applies to all, black, white, brown, whatever.

We also have a history and a culture of preventative policing. Active patrolling police officers that seek to stop crimes before they happen. Up until recent decades this was the polices main job - to patrol, and to act as a deterrent to crime. I have been stopped by the police a few times late at night, when I was a kid - they didn't presume I was guilty.. and I was never charged, or had any negative consequences.. the police just want to check whats going on. Its not a presumtion of guilt.. its a presumption of possible guilt. Once they have spoken to you - and you are clearly innocent, nothing happens.

So if you suspect someone of carrying a knife and have evidence to backup that suspicion then go for it.

Do you apply this same method to airports? why should an airport search you? They have no evidence that you are guilty... but we all accept that preventative measures need to apply for mass-saftey and security. Its the same with police taking pre-emptive actions against individuals.

But randomly stopping people on the hope you can make an arrest... that is called victimisation

No, your not making anyone into a victim. Do you know why the police like to randomly stop people? Its not actually so that they can find a knife and make an arrest...

its so that the next time a kid thinks about carrying a knife - they know that there is the chance they can be stopped. Its a deterrent. Not one that works on every kid, but it certianly helps encourage less to carry knives.

and only makes the general public wary and suspicious of the police.

No. It makes people who like to stoke racial fires, and play their minority status for personal gain - suspicious of police. For the majority of normal, law-abiding citizens, it makes them thankful the police exist, and are willing to do their job, even if it is uplesant at times.

It always makes communities less likely to cooperate with the police

What do you think minority communities wold like more? less profiling, or a reduction in crime? - if it works, they will thank you in the long-run. (again, its not the only solution, its just a part)

and breaks the contract citizens have in this country of allowing the police to police us by consent.

Police by consent is a myth. Try not consenting any see what happens. Even try having the majority of the country not consent and see what happens. Yes we are democracy, but the rule of law is used by those in charge, to subdue those under their charge - consent is just clever branding to make you think that the police are only acting in your best interest. If the population ever voted a party into power that would dissolve the police, those with influence would step in and stop the situation, before it ever happened.

I agree. But you can't pick off ethnic groups just because some people of that ethnic group happen to be committing crime. White men commit crime. In Manchester most of the shootings are done by men who belong to white gangs. But I do not hear calls for stopping white men randomly and searching them for guns. Yet in your mind at least, it would be perfectly acceptable to stop black men.

In this country we are very fortunate to have a system of innocent until proven guilty and that applies to all, black, white, brown, whatever. So if you suspect someone of carrying a knife and have evidence to backup that suspicion then go for it. But randomly stopping people on the hope you can make an arrest... that is called victimisation and only makes the general public wary and suspicious of the police. It always makes communities less likely to cooperate with the police and breaks the contract citizens have in this country of allowing the police to police us by consent

You had the last thread you wrote this on pulled. You are likely to get this one pulled too. Stopping black people because some black people carry knives isn't going to help anyone, just as stopping men because some men carry out crime isn't going to solve anything.

And you keep whittering on about liberalism. Victimising a section of a community simply because of the colour of their skin is racist. Plain and simple. And your rhetoric suggests to me that you are a racist. You would say I am a politically correct liberal snowflake. I'll take that. It is a million times better than being racist.

In order to police minorities, police need to form a relationship and trust with those minorities. Having people like baying at them to stop and arrest every black person in sight because some of them commit crime doesn't achieve any reduction in crime. That is why it is no longer done. Police need to be stopping people carrying knives. Not black people because some black people happen to commit crime.

Is it? Racists are against other races. You are against majorities, playing the oppression olympics.

Not at all. Where did I say or suggest that. But I find it ironic that you seem comfortable with suppressing minorities but if a majority become hard-done-by, well that is a different matter. Surely the issue is being hard-done-by regardless of whether you are in a majority or minority? In the case of crime - why not challenge criminals? They are the issue. Race has nothing to do with it.

As for everything else you whittered on about - whatever!

You had the last thread you wrote this on pulled. You are likely to get this one pulled too. Stopping black people because some black people carry knives isn't going to help anyone, just as stopping men because some men carry out crime isn't going to solve anything.

And you keep whittering on about liberalism. Victimising a section of a community simply because of the colour of their skin is racist. Plain and simple. And your rhetoric suggests to me that you are a racist. You would say I am a politically correct liberal snowflake. I'll take that. It is a million times better than being racist.

In order to police minorities, police need to form a relationship and trust with those minorities. Having people like baying at them to stop and arrest every black person in sight because some of them commit crime doesn't achieve any reduction in crime. That is why it is no longer done. Police need to be stopping people carrying knives. Not black people because some black people happen to commit crime.

No, it's not whatever - the new left is fascist af. And you are one of them. I am not comfortable with it at all, I am just pointing out that you are the flip side of a racist.

You can assign whatever labels you like to me. But I find it rather sad that you see equality as a bad thing. I don't really understand how treating people the same regardless of how they look, speak or their gender is somehow a step backwards. Bring on the meritocracy I say.