Croydon: Girl, 15, killed in south London stabbing

I have already

Decriminalise drug possession.

I'm not opposed to this in the sense that it would free up a lot of police time. However, as with so many things, I don't think that as a country we are ready for the shock. With the media and social media being the way it is, I don't see how any government survives the first six months to a year of such a policy. People will inevitably act stupidly straight away and it is an absolute certainty that newsfeeds would be filled every day with bad news stories related to such policy, and photographs of sad looking people who say their child died of a heroin OD that never would have happened had the evil government (of whichever colour - probably orange) hadn't legalised drugs. Every newspaper except the Independent would be feverishly working to bring down the government. Politicians know this would happen, so thats why it's so unlikely. The same could be said for speed limits on motorways. I could be persuaded that long term it would be a good thing to either raise of get rid of speed limits on motorways - but we all know that if that happened, in the first few days there would be fatal accidents all over the place as people abuse their new found freedoms and behave stupidly. As such, no government would survive it.

This all comes round to a simple question of - how does decriminalising possession reduce violent crime? The answer is - it doesn't. It won't do a thing other than to embolden gang kids who are actually dealing but will now be able to much more easily claim they are simply in possession. I don't really see any circumstances under which you won't see a proliferation of gang activity rather than a reduction.

I'd much rather see legalisation but that does seem very unrealistic at this time. The criminalisation of drugs means that crime pays and it pays well this leads to more and more turning to crime with violent gangs forming to protect profits. Decriminalisation can reduce risks involved and prices of these drugs in turn reducing incentives to truning to crime. Along with freeing up police time decriminalisation will mean the outcomes of stop and search will be less racist and communities may be more willing to accept it.

How is stop and search racist?

I'd much rather see legalisation but that does seem very unrealistic at this time. The criminalisation of drugs means that crime pays and it pays well this leads to more and more turning to crime with violent gangs forming to protect profits. Decriminalisation can reduce risks involved and prices of these drugs in turn reducing incentives to truning to crime. Along with freeing up police time decriminalisation will mean the outcomes of stop and search will be less racist and communities may be more willing to accept it.

It shouldn't be that a white person has more freedom to take drugs than a black person.

The last five people I stopped and searched for drugs were all white. The difference is that nobody cares when white people are stopped.

Black people are no more likely to use drugs than white people but are far more likely to be caught in possesion.

That's because black people are far more likely to be involved in dealing drugs.

It shouldn't be that a white person has more freedom to take drugs than a black person.

I'm not conviced that's true but either way it's still not right that black drug users are less free than white drug users and decriminalisation would stop that.

Please don’t start banging that race baiting drum. Stop and search is not racist. Black people are statistically more likely to commit crime therefore are stopped more. That is not a racist thing to say, it’s the truth.

Despite making up only 13% of London's total population, black Londoners account for 45% of London's knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators and 53% of knife
crime perpetrators. I wonder why they’re stopped more.

Of course it’s true. Have a quick look at drug related stats. Lazy whataboutery. That’s what this post is.

I'm interested in hearing what these complex mechanisms are, because to me they're quite straightforward.

1. For the longest time, people around the world have always banded together in like-minded groups and committed crimes.

2. Young people are indoctrinated to think that they are responsible for nothing, nothing is their fault and that there are no consequences to their actions.

3. They learn from social media to defy authority and behave in any manner that they like. If they are stopped by police, they cry out that they are being abused, racially profiled or that they cannot breathe. People rush to their aid and immediately side with them, even though they are carrying weapons or drugs.

4. Decades of weak social policy has led to almost no penalty for crime. Hence, it is completely rational to commit crime.

The answers are not in youth clubs, social justice or education. Those are long-term projects - like trying to put out a fire with a smoke alarm. There is no point in thinking about blue sky preventative measures if you're already in an emergency. Equally, there are too many people convinced that crime can be treated like public health (because we've just seen how effective government is at public health). What is required is to allow policing to occur again, the CPS to be funded and stop being timid, and for courts and especially magistrates to stop giving out absurdly low penalties upon conviction.

Still I would ask you another question, how would you propose about improving relationships between the police and BAME communities?

The quick answer, just to this bit is - you don't.

Firstly, I don't believe in grouping all people together like that as a "community". Just because someone is black, I don't believe that their code of beliefs or behaviours can be predicted or appealed to in such a way. There are people who are generally supportive of police, and there are people that are anti-police. The people that are anti-police, regardless of their intersectional characteristics, cannot be appealed to. There is nothing that police can do to improve the relationship, because the other side does not want to have a relationship under any circumstances. I'll give you a very simple example - Sadiq Khan. The Mayor of London is vehemently anti-police to the extent that more or less his entire non-political career was spent suing the Metropolitan Police, and his entire political career has been spent attacking and trying to damage or destroy the Metropolitan Police. Now, Sadiq Khan is not victimised by the Met, he isn't discriminated against by them, in fact he takes absurd liberties with the Met - he demands his own personal protection team (which no other Mayor has had and there has never been any reason to), he has gotten rid of a Chief Constable and continually suggests breaking the police force up. A person in a position of such extreme power - has no reason to fear the police - and yet is so deeply hating and distrustful - there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change their mind. Translate that to the hypothetical and somewhat ridiculous trope of the aspiring architect/footballer boy from the inner city council estate. They learn from quite a young age, especially on social media, how to challenge the police and exactly how far they can go and what they can say to "know their rights" which is nothing to do with their individual liberties, but more to do with being seen (as you say) as a "big man". Sometimes for no reason at all, a boy on the streets will say "Am I detained?" even though there was no suggestion that they would be - simply because they want to challenge authority. In such a situation, there is nothing that can be done. You cannot convince or educate a 12 year old that they can have a positive relationship with police - simply because it is not in their interest. They want to challenge the police, they want to try and get away with as much as they can - on what planet is trying to change that going to work?

As to the adults - I take you to the recent incident in Wales. Two idiots ran from police and later on killed themselves by crashing a high powered electric bike. Widespread disorder followed, mostly undertaken by adults. Was this because they were angry at police? Maybe, maybe not- but this doesn't happen when a nurse murders 8 babies, or a hospital negligently kills someone's grandmother - because people are not anti-NHS or anti-doctor in the same way. At the funeral of these boys, the parents played violent gangster hip hop about killing people and selling drugs. You cannot tell me that there is a narrative or education programme or initiative in the world that will improve relations between those people and police.

The best that police can do is try to keep the neutrals or pro-police people onside, and the only way to do that is by being effective at the job of preventing crime and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, in recent years police are seen as being less and less effective at that for a lot of reasons, and for purely political motivations, the focus has shifted to trying to appeal to tiny minority groups, and in so doing, alienated the majority.

In a sense- nobody is happy with policing, not even the police. Whose fault is it? Ultimately, government, media and social media - and the police for listening to them.

The quick answer, just to this bit is - you don't.

Firstly, I don't believe in grouping all people together like that as a "community". Just because someone is black, I don't believe that their code of beliefs or behaviours can be predicted or appealed to in such a way. There are people who are generally supportive of police, and there are people that are anti-police. The people that are anti-police, regardless of their intersectional characteristics, cannot be appealed to. There is nothing that police can do to improve the relationship, because the other side does not want to have a relationship under any circumstances. I'll give you a very simple example - Sadiq Khan. The Mayor of London is vehemently anti-police to the extent that more or less his entire non-political career was spent suing the Metropolitan Police, and his entire political career has been spent attacking and trying to damage or destroy the Metropolitan Police. Now, Sadiq Khan is not victimised by the Met, he isn't discriminated against by them, in fact he takes absurd liberties with the Met - he demands his own personal protection team (which no other Mayor has had and there has never been any reason to), he has gotten rid of a Chief Constable and continually suggests breaking the police force up. A person in a position of such extreme power - has no reason to fear the police - and yet is so deeply hating and distrustful - there is absolutely nothing that can be done to change their mind. Translate that to the hypothetical and somewhat ridiculous trope of the aspiring architect/footballer boy from the inner city council estate. They learn from quite a young age, especially on social media, how to challenge the police and exactly how far they can go and what they can say to "know their rights" which is nothing to do with their individual liberties, but more to do with being seen (as you say) as a "big man". Sometimes for no reason at all, a boy on the streets will say "Am I detained?" even though there was no suggestion that they would be - simply because they want to challenge authority. In such a situation, there is nothing that can be done. You cannot convince or educate a 12 year old that they can have a positive relationship with police - simply because it is not in their interest. They want to challenge the police, they want to try and get away with as much as they can - on what planet is trying to change that going to work?

As to the adults - I take you to the recent incident in Wales. Two idiots ran from police and later on killed themselves by crashing a high powered electric bike. Widespread disorder followed, mostly undertaken by adults. Was this because they were angry at police? Maybe, maybe not- but this doesn't happen when a nurse murders 8 babies, or a hospital negligently kills someone's grandmother - because people are not anti-NHS or anti-doctor in the same way. At the funeral of these boys, the parents played violent gangster hip hop about killing people and selling drugs. You cannot tell me that there is a narrative or education programme or initiative in the world that will improve relations between those people and police.

The best that police can do is try to keep the neutrals or pro-police people onside, and the only way to do that is by being effective at the job of preventing crime and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, in recent years police are seen as being less and less effective at that for a lot of reasons, and for purely political motivations, the focus has shifted to trying to appeal to tiny minority groups, and in so doing, alienated the majority.

In a sense- nobody is happy with policing, not even the police. Whose fault is it? Ultimately, government, media and social media - and the police for listening to them.