Murder of 87 year old in the street

Dis86 said:
20% of those stopped and searched in England and Wales are found to be committing an offence. For what is potentially a minor inconvenience, minus the innocent buggers that repeatedly get stopped, I'd say that's a pretty good trade.
One of the key points that people who argue against it keep missing is that sometimes crime detection rates drop when it's not used.
Well of course they do. If you don't look for crime you won't detect it...
Click to expand...
So nothing to link then? As from what I can see, the studies that have been done show no real effect on the prevention or deterrence of crime

Discussion and conclusions

Overall, the analysis presented above suggests that, although S&S had a weak association with some
forms of crime across London between 2004 and 2014, the effect was at the outer margins of statistical
and social significance (H1). We found no evidence for effects on robbery and theft, vehicle crime or
criminal damage, and inconsistent evidence of very small effects on burglary, non-domestic violent
crime and total crime; the only strong evidence was for effects on drug offences (H2 and H3). When
we looked separately at s60 searches, it did not appear that a sudden surge in usage had any effect on
the underlying trend in non-domestic violent crime (H4). In other words, we found very little evidence
to support any of our hypotheses.
Click to expand...

I'd wager the vast majority of the "offences" that the 20% found were a bit of weed. So if we legalised weed, stop and search would be pretty useless?
 
Freakbro said:
So nothing to link then? As from what I can see, the studies that have been done show no real effect on the prevention or deterrence of crime



I'd wager the vast majority of the "offences" that the 20% found were a bit of weed. So if we legalised weed, stop and search would be pretty useless?
Click to expand...

I can link plenty, you can too. The stats are easily obtainable. From the Met drugs are the most common cause for arrest, a little bit of weed, as you put it, would result in a caution unless theyre repeat offenders. The second most common is possession of a bladed article followed by stolen property and then going equipped.

If we legalised murder then crimes associated with such would also drop. As it stands the law is clear on possession.
 
Dis86 said:
If we legalised murder then crimes associated with such would also drop. As it stands the law is clear on possession.
Click to expand...

Don't go being silly now, there is plenty of debate about the legal status and handling of drugs (especially weed) all around the world, with legalisation/decriminalisation happening in nearly half the countries now, I don't think many places are discussing the decriminalisation of murder! ;) well, apart from maybe Duterte...

I'm just trying to see if S&S is an effective, and/or cost effective measure against crime, rather than just a visual signal of looking to be doing something which appeals to the people who like the message of being "tough on crime", even if it doesn't work. Whereas as @Ahleckz pointed out, other early interventional measures can have better results in the prevention of crime, but aren't as popular with the 'string em up' crowd.
 
spaggyboy said:
So no source or links?

Cool, we'll just file your spurious claims in the bin where they belong...
Click to expand...
I don't see how I can be clearer that there are, as you well know, many. Easily available with a Google search. The results I've just been discussing with freakbro are from the met themselves.
 
Dis86 said:
I don't see how I can be clearer that there are, as you well know, many. Easily available with a Google search. The results I've just been discussing with freakbro are from the met themselves.
Click to expand...

So you'll have no problem providing us with a link.

'Do your own research' is not a valid debating strategy.
 
Well if the police had stopped and searched this scumbag before he got stabby then this thread wouldn't exist...
 
spaggyboy said:
The voices in your head are not a valid intellectual, debate worthy source...
Click to expand...

That's not the source you were asking for...is it? I've pointed out the metropolitan police are. I'm sorry you're unable to read.

Dis86 said:
I don't see how I can be clearer that there are, as you well know, many. Easily available with a Google search. The results I've just been discussing with freakbro are from the met themselves.
Click to expand...
 
Dis86 said:
That's not the source you were asking for...is it? I've pointed out the metropolitan police are. I'm sorry you're unable to read.
Click to expand...


Oh the irony...

You've been asked for the source of your spurious claims on multiple occasions. You also claim that you CAN in fact insert weblinks into forum posts, and yet... nothing.

Debating is easy.

When you make a claim, you then provide the evidence to back that claim up. If you don't provide the necessary evidence to source your claims, then we will quite rightly assume that you are either lying or exaggerating, and your point will be dismissed into the bin. You made a claim, and can't back it up with evidence. The nearest you've come to that is mumbling something... something... Met Police. Like apparently we're supposed to do your homework for you and search the entire Metropolitan Police website in the vague hope that just might coincidentally stumble on the figures you were referring to. Believe it or not, I don't have the time, energy or the inclination to do that.

So for the final time... pretty please with ******* sugar on top... provide a weblink to your claim.

It's really not that hard to understand.
 
spaggyboy said:
I can't see that forum for some reason. How do I gain access to it? Hopefully the standard of debate will be slightly higher there...
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't have enough posts. If you're averaging 16 posts a year then it might be some time...
 
spaggyboy said:
Oh the irony...

You've been asked for the source of your spurious claims on multiple occasions. You also claim that you CAN in fact insert weblinks into forum posts, and yet... nothing.

Debating is easy.

When you make a claim, you then provide the evidence to back that claim up. If you don't provide the necessary evidence to source your claims, then we will quite rightly assume that you are either lying or exaggerating, and your point will be dismissed into the bin. You made a claim, and can't back it up with evidence. The nearest you've come to that is mumbling something... something... Met Police. Like apparently we're supposed to do your homework for you and search the entire Metropolitan Police website in the vague hope that just might coincidentally stumble on the figures you were referring to. Believe it or not, I don't have the time, energy or the inclination to do that.

So for the final time... pretty please with ******* sugar on top... provide a weblink to your claim.

It's really not that hard to understand.
Click to expand...
Is using Google that difficult for you? Metropolitan police stop and search statistics? I mean come on...its not hard. In fact if you'd stopped whining you could have done it by now! I was clear about the source. @Freakbro seems to have managed absolutely fine.
 
Dis86 said:
Is using Google that difficult for you? Metropolitan police stop and search statistics? I mean come on...its not hard. In fact if you'd stopped whining you could have done it by now! I was clear about the source. @Freakbro seems to have managed absolutely fine.
Click to expand...

You are either one of the stupidest people in existence, or a troll. If it's that latter then I commend you on a job well done, if it's the former... yikes!

Either way, we're done here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom