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

The problem is that people complain that the stats are skewed, such that more black people are stopped as a percentage than white people and others. This mean the policy is called racist, the black people who are stopped say the stop is racist, and the policy is untenable. What this overlooks as a basic fact is that the victims and the perpetrators of these crimes are usually black. The people carrying knives on them and those who need to be stopped -- are black.

But you have fallen into the trap. There are some crime committed prominently by white middle class men e.g. white collar crimes such as fraud and hacking. But I do not hear calls from the press or people like yourselves for the police to raid the houses of middle income families on the basis that fraud might be being committed. Such things are unimaginable.

Yet on the other side of the coin, you don't have any problems with stopping black men on the basis of the fact that a minority of black men commit crime. That is completely acceptable in your view. It makes total and complete sense.

So why is there a difference? Why is it acceptable to stop black men for knife offences, but it isn't acceptable to stop and search white middle class men in the hope of catching them out in white collar crime?

And if you don't like my white collar crime example, because the victims don't get killed, let us take for example, white youths that ride motorbikes, or white gangs that blow up cash machines or white gangs that shoot people in Manchester? Still white men but I don't hear of calls to stop all men randomly in the hope you might get lucky.

Reply 21

the bear

20

of course the police should be able to stop and disarm wrong 'uns irrespective of their race, gender identity, dietary choices, whateverrrrrrrrr

:rolleyes:

Reply 22

username1799249

19

Original post by yudothis

But you are not treating people the same, you want special privileges. Every time the left talks about 'rights', it's not rights they want, they just do that to pretend their demands have merit and those that oppose them are evil people who "deny me my rights".

What are you talking about? I speak for myself - not the right or the left so please don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is for police to catch criminals. I want them to do it on the back of evidence that leads them to suspects. The race or the colour of the suspect is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. And if the police are going to implement a stop and search regime it needs to be based on genuine suspicion. Suspecting someone is a criminal because of the colour of their skin is ineffective and is why such policies were stopped.

You seem to be going very off topic. Why not set up a different thread to lampoon the right or left with your own views. This thread is about knife crime, not Stalin or Hitler.

Reply 23

yudothis

20

Original post by ByEeek

What are you talking about? I speak for myself - not the right or the left so please don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is for police to catch criminals. I want them to do it on the back of evidence that leads them to suspects. The race or the colour of the suspect is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. And if the police are going to implement a stop and search regime it needs to be based on genuine suspicion. Suspecting someone is a criminal because of the colour of their skin is ineffective and is why such policies were stopped.

You seem to be going very off topic. Why not set up a different thread to lampoon the right or left with your own views. This thread is about knife crime, not Stalin or Hitler.

A thread naturally evolves. I commented upon what you said and drew from your other posts on this board. You made a comment about racists, and I just pointed out your hypocrisy in doing so.

Reply 24

username3973192

20

Original post by Spirithorse

A series of stabbings on the streets of London has led to a renewed focus on knife crime and how to reduce it.

One power available to the police is stop and search, and Home Secretary Sajid Javid has recently emphasised its importance in tackling violence:

"If stop and search means that lives can be saved from the communities most affected, then of course it's a very good thing," he told the annual Police Superintendents' Conference in September.

But what powers are available to the police and what is the evidence they reduce crime?

There are three main acts that allow police forces in England and Wales to carry out stop and searches:

Section One of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Last year, 99.1% of all searches were carried out under Section One (if they have "'reasonable grounds" to suspect someone of carrying illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen property or something which could be used to commit a crime, such as a crowbar).

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Allows officers to search anyone in a designated area without "reasonable grounds". It applies when the police have intelligence that serious violence has taken place or may take place.

Sections 44/47A of the Terrorism Act 2000
Allows the police to conduct searches when there is "reasonable suspicion" an act of terrorism will happen. Before last year it had not been used since 2011, but 149 searches were carried out using the power following the Parsons Green bombing in September 2017.

Perceived positives of stop and search:
It acts as a deterrent. Idea that some young people were no longer scared of the police, because they believed the risk of being searched was now very low.

Perceived negatives of stop and search:
On the other hand, if stop and search is used too widely, it can create resentment between the public and the police. This can worsen community intelligence and that the answer to rising knife crime lies in better engagement with young people.

What do you think?

Well tbh the police misuse the acts anyway so Instead of strengthening stop and search powers we should send all the cops to police training where they can learn what they can and can't do and how they should respect people because at the end of the day they are "public servants".

Simple.

Reply 25

AperfectBalance

21

Original post by mojojojo101

You want people to stop commuting crime?

Give them a valuable and meaningful stake in society.

Want to have a valuable stake in society? then dont commit crimes and actually do something

Reply 26

Notoriety

22

Original post by ByEeek

But you have fallen into the trap. There are some crime committed prominently by white middle class men e.g. white collar crimes such as fraud and hacking. But I do not hear calls from the press or people like yourselves for the police to raid the houses of middle income families on the basis that fraud might be being committed. Such things are unimaginable.

Yet on the other side of the coin, you don't have any problems with stopping black men on the basis of the fact that a minority of black men commit crime. That is completely acceptable in your view. It makes total and complete sense.

So why is there a difference? Why is it acceptable to stop black men for knife offences, but it isn't acceptable to stop and search white middle class men in the hope of catching them out in white collar crime?

And if you don't like my white collar crime example, because the victims don't get killed, let us take for example, white youths that ride motorbikes, or white gangs that blow up cash machines or white gangs that shoot people in Manchester? Still white men but I don't hear of calls to stop all men randomly in the hope you might get lucky.

Stop and searches are actually quite specific, to be honest. An area known for stabbings, a type of person known for stabbings, and perhaps intel that a stabbing is going to occur. I grew up in white heart land of scum, where white Brits are the poorerst and most dysfunctional -- the white people are the only ones stopped around here. And why? Because poor white Brits are the ones robbing houses, selling and buying drugs. But more importantly, because these poor white Brits were in areas where the police (trying to prevent crimes) thought such crimes might occur.

So really your comparsion does not work because there are not areas where there are spikes in white collar crime, and not a good chance of stopping people who might be involved with it. White collar crime is not carried out on street corners.

And a search warrant to look into someone's home is much more instrusive than a stop and search, which involes the search of the person and all possessions on him, and a search of all that person's goods. Naturally, knife crime is more of a pressing and immediate issue than white collar crime; the police cannot collect evidence for 8 months and then commit an arrest. They need to stop knife crime before it happens, otherwise people will die.

The white youths on motorbikes, again something I see a lot of us in white heartland, are stopped and searched in anticipation of the offence when there is a spike in crimes associated with motorbikes.

And I was not saying that more black people should be searched to stop knife crime or whatever; there are many ways to deal with the issue and the main one is providing focused support to troubled areas. I am talking about the debate you're having and why I disagree with it, because more black people could be searched based on (poor) intel and then you would seemingly have no cause to complain; and I don't see the reason to complain as valid, because it makes sense that more black people would be searched in suspicion of carrying a knife because more black people are involved in knife crimes.

Further, I would say there are many occasions the police overstep the mark. They are too cocky, don't realise how thick they actually are, and given too much discretion. Every day people are arrested on trumped-up charges, coppers cover their own back to justify arrests, and many other things. Often the victims of these transgressions are white God-fearing people. You don't mention any of this in your critique. I do not think you are at all interested in police abuses. I think you are solely interested in playing the race card in relation to this particular issue. Why is that?

Reply 27

BlueIndigoViolet

19

Yes, stop suspicious activity and step up searches. police are so powerless and underfunded due to the government. lock these 'tough' kids up.

Reply 28

username1148663

21

Original post by Spirithorse

A series of stabbings on the streets of London has led to a renewed focus on knife crime and how to reduce it.

One power available to the police is stop and search, and Home Secretary Sajid Javid has recently emphasised its importance in tackling violence:

"If stop and search means that lives can be saved from the communities most affected, then of course it's a very good thing," he told the annual Police Superintendents' Conference in September.

But what powers are available to the police and what is the evidence they reduce crime?

There are three main acts that allow police forces in England and Wales to carry out stop and searches:

Section One of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Last year, 99.1% of all searches were carried out under Section One (if they have "'reasonable grounds" to suspect someone of carrying illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen property or something which could be used to commit a crime, such as a crowbar).

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Allows officers to search anyone in a designated area without "reasonable grounds". It applies when the police have intelligence that serious violence has taken place or may take place.

Sections 44/47A of the Terrorism Act 2000
Allows the police to conduct searches when there is "reasonable suspicion" an act of terrorism will happen. Before last year it had not been used since 2011, but 149 searches were carried out using the power following the Parsons Green bombing in September 2017.

Perceived positives of stop and search:
It acts as a deterrent. Idea that some young people were no longer scared of the police, because they believed the risk of being searched was now very low.

Perceived negatives of stop and search:
On the other hand, if stop and search is used too widely, it can create resentment between the public and the police. This can worsen community intelligence and that the answer to rising knife crime lies in better engagement with young people.

What do you think?

Yes of course we should it shouldn’t even be a debate.