Wasn't one of the large factors I the stop and search numbers that they were acting on reports.
Ie "a black man in a hoodie"
Disgusting display of Racism
- Thread starter i-bert
- Start date
Wasn't one of the large factors I the stop and search numbers that they were acting on reports.
Ie "a black man in a hoodie"
Quite possibly, and I guess that's one of the cases where race actually then becomes a relevant reason for stopping someone from a particular ethnic group and not others (along with other criteria like gender, clothing etc..).
I think the big factor is perhaps just the demographics of the area and who is likely to be around when they conduct stop and search operations.
Demographics of a particularly high crime rate area might have a higher proportion of particular groups. But in addition to that, there might be some stark differences between the amount of time people spend on the street - what are the demographics like for the people you're most likely to see only early in the morning or in the early evening coming to/from the bus or train station. and what are the demographics of the people who might spend hours hanging around on the streets, in groups etc..
You do some stop and searches in a given area, who are you disproportionately going to come across more than others - the people who spend the most time hanging around on the streets.
Man of Honour
I think the answer is yes, always.
Yes. Because there is.
Regarding your argument that racism isn't racism unless it meets your standards for enough damage and maliciousness, I'll address maliciousness and damage seperately as I think they're seperate things.
Damage is just a matter of scale, of the amount of power behind the racism. It's akin to the difference between a spree killer who only has a handgun with 9 bullets who is drugged up and can't shoot straight and a spree killer who is stone cold sober and has a rifle with 120 bullets. The latter will kill more people, but that doesn't mean the former isn't a spree killer. Also, racism enables racism. Once you accept the idea that racism is such a good thing that it's not actually racism, all that's left is moving the bar. You've already accepted the idea that racism is a good thing. You're just haggling over how much. Also, racism causes racism. When it's black and white, anti-"black" racism causes anti-"white" racism which causes anti-"black" racism, etc. When it's Hutu and Tutsi, anti-Hutu racism causes anti-Tutsi racism, etc. Any irrational prejudice and discrimination that divides humanity in two drives irrational prejudice and discrimination both ways. That's why people like Martin Luther King Jr are so exceptional - they resist that.
Maliciousness is in no way required for irrational prejudice and discrimination. When it comes to racism, see the idea of "the white man's burden". Very racist indeed, but not malicious. Or most anti-female sexism thoughout history, since it's based on the idea that women should be more protected than men. That's not malicious. But it's very sexist.
You'd have a point if stop and search was done solely on the basis of "race", as is the case for fashionably targetted racism (and similarly for fashionably targetted sexism and various other forms of irrational prejudice and discrimination). That's true in your fictional example of alien blue blobs and red blobs, but it's not true in reality.
Scenario 1: A person is stepping out of Pret a Manger at 1330. They're a smartly dressed business person, strolling back to their office after having some lunch. Their skin is relatively dark.
Scenario 2: A person is skulking around in a dodgy area at 0100. They're wearing a hoodie, pulled up to conceal their face as much as possible. They have one hand in their pocket, holding something heavy and the size of a handgun. As they move, a bulge is sometimes visible against the clothing at their hip that's the right size and shape for the hilt of a knife. Their skin is relatively pale.
Would it be right to stop and search the first person and not the second? Your argument would result in the conclusion that yes, it is fine. Targeting stop and search solely on race is fine, right?
I disagree. I consider irrational prejudice and discrimination to be inherently wrong and inherently harmful. I consider arguing that racism is a good thing to be harmful beyond whatever immediate harm is caused because it it leads to increased racism and thus increased harm.
Would you consider it OK to drive at 100mph through an urban area as long as you don't kill anyone? Would you consider it OK for someone to advocate that everyone drive at 100mph through urban areas, to say that it's not an unreasonable speed because not many people are killed? How many is not many?
I noticed a report on the news yesterday saying that the FA were launching an Asian footballers initiative to try and increase representation of Asian players in the game. The media was celebrating it as increasing diversity in the game.
However, to me something just seems fundamentally wrong about creating initiatives aimed at encouraging people of specific ethnicities, rather than everyone, to join in with sports? I can't help but feel it's actually divisive rather than inclusive if you're actively focusing on and segregating people by their ethnicity.
At what point does "positive discrimination" actually become racism if you're offering preferential treatment and additional support to certain ethnic groups but not others?
However, to me something just seems fundamentally wrong about creating initiatives aimed at encouraging people of specific ethnicities, rather than everyone, to join in with sports? I can't help but feel it's actually divisive rather than inclusive if you're actively focusing on and segregating people by their ethnicity.
At what point does "positive discrimination" actually become racism if you're offering preferential treatment and additional support to certain ethnic groups but not others?
Caporegime
There definitely is an Asian under representation but also then a huge over representation of other groups in UK football.
But it's not white people who are over represented.
United tried with Ji Sun Park and Kagawa and Liverpool have Minimino.
Currently I googled the stats and approx 25% of the Premier league is made up of players who are black.
This is an over representation by some 500% of a population in the uk which is only 5%.
So how do we fix this?
Yes, and what was shown was that if a report comes in saying “white man in a hoody” they don’t just stop every white man, in fact they’ll say it doesn’t whittle it down enough, but say “black man” and that’s enough to stop every black man.
It was part of why the police have been shown to be institutionally racist time and time again by some many different reports.
To me you just ensure equal opportunities for everyone and allow people to get into the sports they're keen on as individuals without making it some kind of racial issue!
Otherwise you'll end up down a path where we have football initiatives for every ethnicity except blacks in order to ensure equity and "equal" ethnic representation!
Caporegime
Correct white British are already significantly under represented in both the Premier league and in the England squads ranging from the u18s through to the main squad.
If what we are trying to fix is under representation then rhat would need to be addressed.
As for the EPL the only way to change the make up would be to reduce/remove those from over represented groups, effectively replacing them, with people of other groups.
The EPL squads cant just be increased in size unlike the general UK population so the only way to address it unequivocally would be to remove those who are over represented and give that quota to another group who is under represented.
Caporegime
Probably doesn't help that 3% of the population is guilty of 21% of the murders.
But I know, it's just stats and tings.
So it’s ok to judge people based on the colour of their skin? Is that your point? I don’t see how this is relevant. Explain. Because it sounds just like a pathetic attempt to excuse racism.
Caporegime
That's just home office statistics.
Unless the stats are racist? The people aren't being judged on their race but on the evidence provided at their trial.
It's also worth noting that black people tend to homicide white people at a ratio of 3.4:1.
I.e for each black person that a white person killed, 3.4 white people will be killed by black people.
Probably where the 'ALM' campaign comes from.
Last edited:
That's just home office statistics.
Unless the stats are racist? The people aren't being judged on their race but on the evidence provided at their trial.
It's also worth noting that black people tend to homicide white people at a ratio of 3.4:1.
I.e for each black person that a white person killed, 3.4 white people will be killed by black people.
Probably where the 'ALM' campaign comes from.
So based on these statistics, when you see a black person, do you judge them based on them being black as well?
Caporegime
I'm not the judge in these cases.
The police have a difficult job to do, but defending someone's sensitivities probably isn't a priority.
They will undoubtedly use their knowledge and experience and try to make the best call possible.
If this means acting upon a lead or information provided then we would all reasonably expect them to do so.
Of course as with any institution you will get some bad apples in the police force, especially one employing 153,000 workers.
I think that I’m being paged here, as this sounds like me, but my partiality was based on dress as well as colour.
When I was an owner driver of a London Black Cab, and was hailed by one or two black guys in suits, or khakis and polo shirts, I’d pull over and ask, “Where to guys?”
If I was hailed by one or two black guys in hoodies, or baseball caps worn back to front, or with the bill worn to the side, then I wouldn’t even lift my foot off the accelerator, they had no chance, call me racist if you wish, I considered myself more of a realist.
In thirty years as a licensed taxi driver, I had only two fares get out and run off without paying, one was two black guys, the other a young black girl, it tended to cloud my judgement.
Man of Honour
In that case....Haby Birtdoy!
Man of Honour
At any point in which it exists. Discrimination is positive to people who agree with it. That's all. So anti-white racism is positive to anti-white racists, anti-black racism is positive to anti-black racists, etc, etc.
When hisotry repeats...
Black Communist Leader Exposes the Truth of Racial Divide
https://wallbuilders.com/black-communist-leader-exposes-the-truth/
Remember when Trump announced record black employment in his State of the Union and the Democrats refused to clap?
Black Communist Leader Exposes the Truth of Racial Divide
https://wallbuilders.com/black-communist-leader-exposes-the-truth/
Remember when Trump announced record black employment in his State of the Union and the Democrats refused to clap?
Soldato
You think thats not happened and is still ongoing in effect even if not stated as such. I do think its nonsense to be judging off a skin colour, they could or should be considering far more factors then that and I assume they are really. 30 people is a really small amount, I dont see a problem so long as its not a Uni policy to exclude by colour. Theres special scholarships for all sorts of things, I remember someone from my physics class qualified to oxford for his bible studies because there is money allocated for that he just required 2 E grades, he was very clever anyway but he never had any doubts his place was secure just a few months into the A levels
There are some choice quotes in there.
This list applies to other things as well
Sounds familiar but I can't quite seem to put my finger on it. \s
Interesting
Interesting
Because helping black people was never truly the agenda?