Stop and search

[Kazanne]

Do you think more stop and search would ease the knife crime in the uK ? It could be a good idea if done properly imo.

[bots]

i think the problem comes from the invasion into privacy when there is no probable cause for the search. For example, what happens if the person is being searched for knives but out pops half a Kg of cannabis from their pockets, or 20 stolen phones. It's a slippery slope really into a police state.

[Nicky91]

:nono: everyone has right to their privacy

[Ammi]

...I think more community policing in areas and working with younger people especially would be more the thing than stop and search, Kaz...

[bots]

they already have scanning equipment at the airport that basically shows people naked. A few more of them in trouble spots could be quite enlightening

[Crimson Dynamo]

the police know who is liable to carry knives in London but their hands are somewhat tied...

[bots]

the police know who is liable to carry knives in London but their hands are somewhat tied...

sounds like they need to borrow a knife from someone.

[Kazanne]

the police know who is liable to carry knives in London but their hands are somewhat tied...

Yes,I guess they would be accused of racism or intimidation but some sections of society,but reallyif you have nothing to hide,I don't see much of a problem,it may be inconvenient but if it saves just one life surely it would be worth it,as bitontheslide said they could use scanners.

[Oliver_W]

For example, what happens if the person is being searched for knives but out pops half a Kg of cannabis from their pockets, or 20 stolen phones. It's a slippery slope really into a police state.
If someone out there has stolen at least twenty phones, I don't really care if they get apprehended when they were initially thought to be carrying something else.
Anyone out there whinging about "racism" when it comes to stop and searches in certain areas should leave their stupid comments in their pocket.

[Crimson Dynamo]

A lot of the issue seems to be absent fathers

[DemolitionRed]

If they have good reason to be suspicious then yes.

This is an interesting government report. From https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest

From 2012-3 Stop and search has been dropping by quite a bit. 2014-15 had the lowest numbers since 2006

[chuff me dizzy]

Yes it would stop a lot of whats happening ,and if people are doing nothing wrong,they've nothing to fear from being searched

[chuff me dizzy]

i think the problem comes from the invasion into privacy when there is no probable cause for the search. For example, what happens if the person is being searched for knives but out pops half a Kg of cannabis from their pockets, or 20 stolen phones. It's a slippery slope really into a police state.

They would be breaking the law !

[arista]

...I think more community policing in areas and working with younger people especially would be more the thing than stop and search, Kaz...

No Ammi
They are Cutting them back - No funding

So stop and search is back
If you have a rambo knife
you may run.

[Ammi]

No Ammi
They are Cutting them back - No funding

So stop and search is back
If you have a rambo knife
you may run.

...yeah I know there are cutbacks, Arista...that’s one of the issues though imo to help prevent...community policing is essential in areas, especially those of higher violence crimes....

[Ammi]

..don’t you use your bold on me, Arista..:laugh:...

[Oliver_W]

A lot of the issue seems to be absent fathers

A fair few people took offense in another thread when I said the best indicator of a successful life is being raised by two parents.

[chuff me dizzy]

A fair few people took offense in another thread when I said the best indicator of a successful life is being raised by two parents.

I agree it is the best,but I raised my eldest 2 children alone for most of their childhood and their youth,until I married my 2nd husband when my son was 22 and my daughter 20 ,I have never had any trouble at all with them, they never got into trouble at school or outside, strict but fair parenting is the answer and there must be a line of being the parent and them the child ,sadly today a lot of parents are more interested in being on Facebook with their mates all day ,one of my biggest bug bears is seeing parents pick their kids up from school texting as they walk home while little kid run on in front or lags behind them .. PUT YOUR PHONE DOWN ask them what sort of of day they've had, what they had for dinner,the buck stops with the parents, not schools ,not social media, not video games ,social service, they are YOUR children its up to you to guide them

[user104658]

if people are doing nothing wrong,they've nothing to fear from being searched

I wondered how long it would take for this ol' soundbite to trot out. "Not very long", is the unsurprising answer.

Anyway; my answer is a very firm "no" to random searches. If there is legitimate good reason to believe that someone is carrying a weapon, fine. Otherwise, no.

[arista]

..don’t you use your bold on me, Arista..:laugh:...


Thats it Lady
Stand your ground

[chuff me dizzy]

I wondered how long it would take for this ol' soundbite to trot out. "Not very long", is the unsurprising answer.

Anyway; my answer is a very firm "no" to random searches. If there is legitimate good reason to believe that someone is carrying a weapon, fine. Otherwise, no.

I said it because its what I believe and its true .... If you are doing nothing wrong you've nothing to fear

[smudgie]

If somebody is acting suspicious, then fine, stop and search them.
If it is so it can be jotted and totted then no.
My son could be stopped and searched 4 times in one evening....in a very crime free area, but they had to reach those target figures, and he was a cheeky little blighter.
Operation Zero Tolerance it was called, well they got that right.:fist:

[Oliver_W]

I wondered how long it would take for this ol' soundbite to trot out. "Not very long", is the unsurprising answer.

Anyway; my answer is a very firm "no" to random searches. If there is legitimate good reason to believe that someone is carrying a weapon, fine. Otherwise, no.
How do you define "random"? Would a person who "looked chavvy", was acting really shifty, and crossed the road when near a policeman count as a random search?

sadly today a lot of parents are more interested in being on Facebook with their mates all day ,one of my biggest bug bears is seeing parents pick their kids up from school texting as they walk home while little kid run on in front or lags behind them .. PUT YOUR PHONE DOWN
I said much the same in a "pet peeves" thread, I think in Chat&Games. At a Beavers event a few months back one of the parents spent nearly the entire "show" on her phone, while the kids were performing what they'd spent the weekend practising, and would have missed her son's bit if not nudged.
I wouldn't blame someone for wearing earbuds, but to visibly be ignoring it for one's phone is bloody rude

[user104658]

I said it because its what I believe and its true .... If you are doing nothing wrong you've nothing to fearApart from a life of subservience and obedience to an authoritarian state. But I suppose some people live that way anyway and thus wouldn't fear it.

[chuff me dizzy]

How do you define "random"? Would a person who "looked chavvy", was acting really shifty, and crossed the road when near a policeman count as a random search?


I said much the same in a "pet peeves" thread, I think in Chat&Games. At a Beavers event a few months back one of the parents spent nearly the entire "show" on her phone, while the kids were performing what they'd spent the weekend practising, and would have missed her son's bit if not nudged.
I wouldn't blame someone for wearing earbuds, but to visibly be ignoring it for one's phone is bloody rude

Really gets my back up !! I've wound down my car window many times and shouted when I've seen "Mothers" crossing a very busy road near me ,texting or checking if anyones "Liked" their post saying they have just picked "Princess " up from school and they are not even holding the 4 yr old "Princess's " hand as she's 10 yards behind her ,this is the start of kids that will end up going wrong,Ive seen it over and over with kids near me

[chuff me dizzy]

Apart from a life of subservience and obedience to an authoritarian state. But I suppose some people live that way anyway and thus wouldn't fear it.

On the right side of the law

[Crimson Dynamo]

A fair few people took offense in another thread when I said the best indicator of a successful life is being raised by two parents.


I think people just think about themselves or a n other example of a pal who was brought up with their mum and turned out ok. Of course its as a whole that you refer and not individual examples that prove the rule

[Kizzy]

There's a speech being made now in relation to this, apparently she didn't get the memo... :/

Labour continues to attack the government over the home office leak and Rudd’s admission that she hasn’t read the research.

Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, said:

“The Tories’ concern about knife crime doesn’t even run so far as providing new money or extra officers to tackle it. What part of the Home Office budget is being raided to fund this initiative? It must not be from elsewhere in the police or security budgets which have already been slashed.

“This morning the Home Secretary claimed to be launching “a fact and evidence-fuelled” strategy, but then admitted she hadn’t even bothered to read the evidence her officials have compiled.

“This looks increasingly like a PR stunt by Amber Rudd designed to grab a good headline. The Tories have slashed police funding and resources, leaving them struggling to cope with rising serious crime. This latest announcement looks like a cover up of their own failures.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/apr/09/leak-challenges-amber-rudds-claim-that-police-cuts-are-not-to-blame-for-london-violence-live-updates

https://news.sky.com/story/amber-rudd-admits-she-hasnt-read-leaked-report-on-police-cuts-11323837

[Crimson Dynamo]

Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, said:

“The Tories’ concern about knife crime doesn’t even run so far as providing new money or extra officers to tackle it. What part of the Home Office budget is being raided to fund this initiative? It must not be from elsewhere in the police or security budgets which have already been slashed.


:joker:


rneBbKrVE7A


You could not make this stupid clown woman up, she is an embarrassment

[bots]

Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, said:

“The Tories’ concern about knife crime doesn’t even run so far as providing new money or extra officers to tackle it. What part of the Home Office budget is being raided to fund this initiative? It must not be from elsewhere in the police or security budgets which have already been slashed.


:joker:


rneBbKrVE7A


You could not make this stupid clown woman up, she is an embarrassment

that's a very cutting criticism LT

[chuff me dizzy]

Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, said:

“The Tories’ concern about knife crime doesn’t even run so far as providing new money or extra officers to tackle it. What part of the Home Office budget is being raided to fund this initiative? It must not be from elsewhere in the police or security budgets which have already been slashed.


:joker:


rneBbKrVE7A


You could not make this stupid clown woman up, she is an embarrassment

Total nut job ! :crazy:

[Kizzy]

So we're back to mocking Diane Abbot? :idc:

[Withano]

Could get more police on the street, but democracy says no

[Beso]

So we're back to mocking Diane Abbot? :idc:

SHE WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST TO COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS THE FIRST TIME STOP AND SEARCH GOT CANCELLED.:joker::joker:

[chuff me dizzy]

SHE WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST TO COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS THE FIRST TIME STOP AND SEARCH GOT CANCELLED.:joker::joker:

Racist cow !!

[Tom4784]

Nope, it's morally wrong and ineffective.

It also represents an attitude I despise, the attitude of eroding and throwing away our rights for a false sense of security.

[Brillopad]

Nope, it's morally wrong and ineffective.

It also represents an attitude I despise, the attitude of eroding and throwing away our rights for a false sense of security.

It is neither morally wrong or ineffective. If is saves one life it is worth it.

[chuff me dizzy]

It is neither morally wrong or ineffective. If is saves one life it is worth it.

My thoughts too ,protect the innocent ......sod the criminals

[AnnieK]

I'm not a fan of this concept. If the police have reason to stop and search from a report or something I get that - but how can police decide if someone looks dodgy? Or would they stop everyone?

[Tom4784]

It is neither morally wrong or ineffective. If is saves one life it is worth it.

It is ineffective, look it up. There's plenty of studies that have come to the same conclusion

All Stop and Search does is erode people's rights and it's an insult to those that have died to preserve our rights. Worst of all, it's a false sense of security.

[Oliver_W]

It is ineffective, look it up. There's plenty of studies that have come to the same conclusion

Okay, I looked it up. Overall, it suggests that higher rates of stop and search (under any power) were associated with lower than expected rates of crime in the following week or month. (http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Documents/Stop%20and%20search%20-%20Less%20crime%20-%20Report.pdf) While this particular police study admits the results were inconsistent, I'd be interested to see what studies you've been looking at?

[Gstar]

Yes and their excuse for not doing so is stupid (something along the lines of racism/racial profiling)

I’m black and I don’t mind being searched every day if it involves ‘possibly’ preventing someone being murdered

[Kazanne]

Yes and their excuse for not doing so is stupid (something along the lines of racism/racial profiling)

I’m black and I don’t mind being searched every day if it involves ‘possibly’ preventing someone being murdered

:clap1::clap1::clap1::clap1:

[user104658]

I’m black and I don’t mind being searched every day if it involves ‘possibly’ preventing someone being murdered

I highly, highly doubt that if you were searched every day for a year you would still be saying that. If you genuinely don't mind being stopped and harassed by law enforcement whilst going about your day, then that's... Err... Great, I guess, but I don't think you speak for most people who actually do value their liberty, autonomy and right to privacy.

Here's a question for the #metoo generation;

Its not just teenage males who are involved in violent crime, and only stop and searching males would be profiling anyway. So... Are we OK with male police officers having the legal right to stop and "pat down" any teenage girl they want to in the street? Do we expect teenage girls to be OK with these intrusive searches "because it might save lives"?

[Cherie]

I highly, highly doubt that if you were searched every day for a year you would still be saying that. If you genuinely don't mind being stopped and harassed by law enforcement whilst going about your day, then that's... Err... Great, I guess, but I don't think you speak for most people who actually do value their liberty, autonomy and right to privacy.

Here's a question for the #metoo generation;

Its not just teenage males who are involved in violent crime, and only stop and searching males would be profiling anyway. So... Are we OK with male police officers having the legal right to stop and "pat down" any teenage girl they want to in the street? Do we expect teenage girls to be OK with these intrusive searches "because it might save lives"?

I think a female officer would have to do that, much the same as at the airport, I have been patted down more times then I care to count, I could walk through naked and the alarms would go off :laugh:

[Cherie]

Yes and their excuse for not doing so is stupid (something along the lines of racism/racial profiling)

I’m black and I don’t mind being searched every day if it involves ‘possibly’ preventing someone being murdered

I have heard a lot of voices from the communities affected saying the same thing, yet those voice are lost ...why? why are people who are not living in these communities not having their voices heard and why are they being overridden by people who will never by affected ..it's all wrong

[AnnieK]

I think a female officer would have to do that, much the same as at the airport, I have been patted down more times then I care to count, I could walk through naked and the alarms would go off :laugh:

Me too Cherie, I think I have metal bones or something. I had to go into the full body scanner thing last time I flew, I wanted to see the image but it just gave me a green light.

However, you expect that kind of thing at an airport, walking down the street I would be highly pissed off if I was deemed dodgy looking and required a stop and search without due reason.

[Cherie]

Me too Cherie, I think I have metal bones or something. I had to go into the full body scanner thing last time I flew, I wanted to see the image but it just gave me a green light.

However, you expect that kind of thing at an airport, walking down the street I would be highly pissed off if I was deemed dodgy looking and required a stop and search without due reason.

How is it any different to stopping people for drink driving though, we go to Spain a lot and police are always carrying out stops, (though in Spain they are really looking to fine you for something to put money in the coffers), so what is the answer, we put more police on the streets but with no powers.. I think we do need more community police but even that is not enough in some areas.

[Tom4784]

The government needs to stop stripping money away from public services, random checks are just that, random (although not really which harms ANY potential effectiveness of it even more)

Instead of calling for this stop gap measure, you should all be calling for more funds for the police so they can maintain a police presence on the streets without having to make up for a lack of presence with pointless stop and searches which just erode our rights.

More police on the street will help more than targeting black people for stop and searches ever would.

[user104658]

I think a female officer would have to do that, much the same as at the airport, I have been patted down more times then I care to count, I could walk through naked and the alarms would go off [emoji23]Right; but then do we always have to ensure that officers work in mixed-sex pairs? If two male officers suspect a female is armed, do they overlook it? Can a female officer search a male?

And most importantly - WHY would it have to be a female officer for girls. The answer is an obvious one; "because being body searched is a huge invasion of personal space and privacy".

And that's why it shouldn't ever be accepted as a normal part of living in a city.

[hijaxers]

Yes and their excuse for not doing so is stupid (something along the lines of racism/racial profiling)

I’m black and I don’t mind being searched every day if it involves ‘possibly’ preventing someone being murdered

:clap1::clap1:

[chuff me dizzy]

Right; but then do we always have to ensure that officers work in mixed-sex pairs? If two male officers suspect a female is armed, do they overlook it? Can a female officer search a male?

And most importantly - WHY would it have to be a female officer for girls. The answer is an obvious one; "because being body searched is a huge invasion of personal space and privacy".

And that's why it shouldn't ever be accepted as a normal part of living in a city.

They would radio through for a female officer to go to them

[user104658]

They would radio through for a female officer to go to themSo not only are we stopping and searching people, we're detaining them for however long it takes for another officer to show up? With complete disregard for the fact that they might actually have somewhere they need to be? What if they need to catch a bus or a train, or are on their way to work?

[Tom4784]

They would radio through for a female officer to go to them

So if you got stopped by two male officers randomly, you'd be happy potentially waiting for potentially a long while just to have them invade your privacy based on a hunch?

[Cherie]

Right; but then do we always have to ensure that officers work in mixed-sex pairs? If two male officers suspect a female is armed, do they overlook it? Can a female officer search a male?

And most importantly - WHY would it have to be a female officer for girls. The answer is an obvious one; "because being body searched is a huge invasion of personal space and privacy".

And that's why it shouldn't ever be accepted as a normal part of living in a city.


Well yes if that is what work, pouring police onto the streets with no powers is pretty useless to me anyway

If you lived in a problem area I think you would be delighted to see people being stopped and searched.

[chuff me dizzy]

So not only are we stopping and searching people, we're detaining them for however long it takes for another officer to show up? With complete disregard for the fact that they might actually have somewhere they need to be? What if they need to catch a bus or a train, or are on their way to work?

If it saves young lives then yes i would

[user104658]

If it saves young lives then yes i wouldIt would definitely save lives if we enforced a curfew that stops everyone from going out of their homes after 10pm. Would you support that?

[Cherie]

It would definitely save lives if we enforced a curfew that stops everyone from going out of their homes after 10pm. Would you support that?

It really wouldn't given alot of the most recent stabbings have taken place in daytime :idc:

Have you ever been pulled over by the police in the past to check you have insurance or are not over the limit? Are you giving up your liberties when that happens?

[user104658]

It really wouldn't given alot of the most recent stabbings have taken place in daytime :idc:

My point was more that there are obviously more and more measures that can be taken and its not just a case of "anything goes for safety". I mean how about... We make it that people under 18 aren't allowed to leave their homes AT ALL other than to attend school. That would definitely save young lives? But we would never consider doing it. Because at the end of the day, everyone has to admit that they draw the line between liberty and safety SOMEWHERE. For some, random searches without cause are on the acceptable side of that line. For others, it never will be.



Have you ever been pulled over by the police in the past to check you have insurance or are not over the limit? Are you giving up your liberties when that happens?

They check insurance / MOT status remotely these days with no need to pull anyone over and other than that... No... I'm not OK with the police pulling people over without cause. As far as I'm aware, they don't? They would only pull you over if you were speeding or driving erratically, which is when they would test for inebriation. Or for safety reasons like if there were signs of there being something wrong with the vehicle.

[user104658]

To be clear, I have no issue with people being searched if there is a REASON to suspect they're carrying a concealed weapon... Like a visible handle, a bulge in the clothing, pulling clothing down when they see the police, or a report that someone is carrying, etc. - all of those I would say are directly comparable to being pulled over by traffic police.

What I would never be OK with is "random" searches where people could literally be walking to the shops minding their own business and be stopped. It's also VERY unlikely that there wouldn't be an element of racial / socioeconomic profiling going on there. They're not going to stop a guy in a £1000 suit and ask to look through his briefcase, are they. So it's not really "random" at all... If you're stopped, it's someone saying "sorry but you look like a potential criminal to me" - and that's the sort of thing that makes people feel outcast, and makes them more likely to seek belonging outside of "normal society". For example, in a gang.

[Cherie]

My point was more that there are obviously more and more measures that can be taken and its not just a case of "anything goes for safety". I mean how about... We make it that people under 18 aren't allowed to leave their homes AT ALL other than to attend school. That would definitely save young lives? But we would never consider doing it. Because at the end of the day, everyone has to admit that they draw the line between liberty and safety SOMEWHERE. For some, random searches without cause are on the acceptable side of that line. For others, it never will be.



They check insurance / MOT status remotely these days with no need to pull anyone over and other than that... No... I'm not OK with the police pulling people over without cause. As far as I'm aware, they don't? They would only pull you over if you were speeding or driving erratically, which is when they would test for inebriation. Or for safety reasons like if there were signs of there being something wrong with the vehicle.


Before cameras became the norm, they pulled you over, the last time we were in Ireland there was a Garda checkpoint, in Spain you will often find the Guardia Civil stopping traffic and randomly checking things, I don't this it is a bad thing, as it acts as prevention, if you think you might be stopped and searched I think you would be less likely to wander around with a kitchen knife in your pocket, that is my view anyway

[user104658]

if you think you might be stopped and searched I think you would be less likely to wander around with a kitchen knife in your pocket, that is my view anyway.

Well yes, you'd be less likely to do a lot of things if you feel like you're constantly being watched and controlled. That's the whole concept of "1984", after all.

[Oliver_W]

They're not going to stop a guy in a £1000 suit and ask to look through his briefcase, are they.
To be fair, such a person is less likely to be involved in violent crime.
Apart from this guy
https://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/images/3294a.jpg

[Cherie]

Well yes, you'd be less likely to do a lot of things if you feel like you're constantly being watched and controlled. That's the whole concept of "1984", after all.

So what is your solution to the problem right now, apart from everyone upping sticks and moving out of their communities which was your solution to the problem on Saturday

[Crimson Dynamo]

To be clear, I have no issue with people being searched if there is a REASON to suspect they're carrying a concealed weapon... Like a visible handle, a bulge in the clothing, pulling clothing down when they see the police, or a report that someone is carrying, etc. - all of those I would say are directly comparable to being pulled over by traffic police.

What I would never be OK with is "random" searches where people could literally be walking to the shops minding their own business and be stopped. It's also VERY unlikely that there wouldn't be an element of racial / socioeconomic profiling going on there. They're not going to stop a guy in a £1000 suit and ask to look through his briefcase, are they. So it's not really "random" at all... If you're stopped, it's someone saying "sorry but you look like a potential criminal to me" - and that's the sort of thing that makes people feel outcast, and makes them more likely to seek belonging outside of "normal society". For example, in a gang.

The police stop the people they know are likely to carry. Tough luck if some herbert feels he is being profiled. or some "community leader"

they dont deal with crime, the police do

[Cherie]

as for 1984 when you signed up to social media you ticked that box.

[Maru]

It's legal to carry those things here, but I wouldn't agree to it here if it were illegal when citizens have the ability to arm themselves... but if they are in an area where those people are heavily dependent on the police for their personal safety, then yes, I think citizens should considering allowing it.. and maybe an argument could be made that it would even be a civil obligation in order to get the issue under control... but I personally would not be thrilled with that policy. It puts officers in additional danger when those stops go sideways and it also puts regular citizens through additional duress for the sake of improving community safety... I don't think it would be a deterrent. It wouldn't be often enough with the amount of staff that most agencies keep. I just think it's just leading to things like more corruption in the police, and an expanded state and loss of public trust... all which may lead to more crime anyway, or at least additional problems that may even offset the gains. It may not even make people feel less safe, for a number of reasons, but also because of the increased police presence...

It's like when we go to the airport in the US and they have additional security. There will be soldiers in uniform who are fully armed. Sure, it makes us feel safer in that... well these guys got my back... but then we are also more conscious when we walk into areas where they are not at... so it is a constant reminder in some ways.

[Brillopad]

It is ineffective, look it up. There's plenty of studies that have come to the same conclusion

All Stop and Search does is erode people's rights and it's an insult to those that have died to preserve our rights. Worst of all, it's a false sense of security.

People didn’t die to potentially allow people to walk around carrying knives and guns unchallenged. If some groups are more likely to carry it makes sense they would be more likely to be searched. The innocent have nothing to fear.

[The Slim Reaper]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-those-who-give-up-liberty-for-the-sake-of-security-deserve-neither-liberty-nor-security-benjamin-franklin-138-53-72.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-those-who-give-up-liberty-for-the-sake-of-security-deserve-neither-liberty-nor-security-benjamin-franklin-138-53-72.jpg

have you any quotes from people who have lived in the last 250 years?

you know what with the advent of tv, radio, cars, planes, internet, nuclear weapons, space travel etc?

:skull:

[The Slim Reaper]

have you any quotes from people who have lived in the last 250 years?

you know what with the advent of tv, radio, cars, planes, internet, nuclear weapons, space travel etc?

:skull:

Why? The premise is still absolutely correct. A truism is a truism regardless of the date of origin.

I knew Hitch wouldn't let me down;

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-trade-off-between-freedom-and-security-so-often-proposed-so-seductively-very-often-christopher-hitchens-112-57-21.jpg

[Crimson Dynamo]

Why? The premise is still absolutely correct. A truism is a truism regardless of the date of origin.

I knew Hitch wouldn't let me down;

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-trade-off-between-freedom-and-security-so-often-proposed-so-seductively-very-often-christopher-hitchens-112-57-21.jpg

but why does that in any way relate to the subject matter?

[The Slim Reaper]

but why does that in any way relate to the subject matter?

I posted a quote that I agree with that relates to the subject matter, which you questioned and asked for another one, which I provided.

I could have just written the quote and took credit for it I guess; would that have made you feel better?

Have I made a mistake, and this thread isn't really about volunteering away our privacy and civil liberties for the idealised solution to knife crime?

[Crimson Dynamo]

I posted a quote that I agree with that relates to the subject matter, which you questioned and asked for another one, which I provided.

I could have just written the quote and took credit for it I guess; would that have made you feel better?

Have I made a mistake, and this thread isn't really about volunteering away our privacy and civil liberties for the idealised solution to knife crime?

Yes i get all the fancy words about liberty but this thread is about solutions

what do you propose as a solution?

[Beso]

I predict a riot.

[kirklancaster]

I agree it is the best,but I raised my eldest 2 children alone for most of their childhood and their youth,until I married my 2nd husband when my son was 22 and my daughter 20 ,I have never had any trouble at all with them, they never got into trouble at school or outside, strict but fair parenting is the answer and there must be a line of being the parent and them the child ,sadly today a lot of parents are more interested in being on Facebook with their mates all day ,one of my biggest bug bears is seeing parents pick their kids up from school texting as they walk home while little kid run on in front or lags behind them .. PUT YOUR PHONE DOWN ask them what sort of of day they've had, what they had for dinner,the buck stops with the parents, not schools ,not social media, not video games ,social service, they are YOUR children its up to you to guide them

:clap1::clap1::clap1: A SCORCHINGLY excellent post, Chuff - CRAMMED with COMMON SENSE and TRUTH.

[jaxie]

I have to agree with much of what has been said about parenting. That is the most important foundation in any kid's life and can make all the difference in regard to whether they get into trouble of any kind or not. I think a good solid home and some discipline weights the advantages for children.

But there are also outside factors that can influence, even when children have had a good stable upbringing and also having a rubbish childhood doesn't always mean you are destined for the dark side either.

With regard to stop and search specifically it is far from the ideal solution to knife crime but if that's all that is on the table, because how can you police peoples intent, then so be it. Some action is better than no action.

[Tom4784]

So what is your solution to the problem right now, apart from everyone upping sticks and moving out of their communities which was your solution to the problem on Saturday

Easy, put more money into the police so there's more of a presence on the street without the need to resort to prejudice to invade people's privacy. It started with Cameron and it's only gotten worse with May, I remember a while ago, a police officer spoke out about the lack of vital resources needed to police the streets and how there's not enough funding to have enough people patrolling and keeping watch, it created quite a stir if I remember right.

People didn’t die to potentially allow people to walk around carrying knives and guns unchallenged. If some groups are more likely to carry it makes sense they would be more likely to be searched. The innocent have nothing to fear.

People died so we could have the rights that we have, Stop and Search infringes on those rights and it encourages Racial Profiling which creates societal problems in itself as you create situations that are endorsed by the system in which certain races will be treated with more suspicion.

Searching people without cause for suspicion is beyond the pale, it makes me sad to see how little people care about their own rights to endorse it.

A person cannot support things like Stop and Search and then pretend they care about their rights or the sacrifices others have made to preserve them. It's irreconcilable.

[kirklancaster]

I have to agree with much of what has been said about parenting. That is the most important foundation in any kid's life and can make all the difference in regard to whether they get into trouble of any kind or not. I think a good solid home and some discipline weights the advantages for children.

But there are also outside factors that can influence, even when children have had a good stable upbringing and also having a rubbish childhood doesn't always mean you are destined for the dark side either.

With regard to stop and search specifically it is far from the ideal solution to knife crime but if that's all that is on the table, because how can you police peoples intent, then so be it. Some action is better than no action.

True Jaxie, and what is being overlooked by some on here, is that the very POSSIBILITY of being 'Stopped and Searched' could be ENOUGH of a DETERRENT to dissuade some young people from carrying knives or other lethal weapons and as the maxim goes; If you pack a gun you'll end up using it one day', so just ONE child dissuaded justifies 'Stop and Search' - in my opinion.

:wavey:

[rusticgal]

I have to agree with much of what has been said about parenting. That is the most important foundation in any kid's life and can make all the difference in regard to whether they get into trouble of any kind or not. I think a good solid home and some discipline weights the advantages for children.

But there are also outside factors that can influence, even when children have had a good stable upbringing and also having a rubbish childhood doesn't always mean you are destined for the dark side either.

With regard to stop and search specifically it is far from the ideal solution to knife crime but if that's all that is on the table, because how can you police peoples intent, then so be it. Some action is better than no action.


You are so right. You can be a great parent but if your child gets mixed up with the wrong company then anything can happen. You can teach your child right from wrong but they can be drawn into wrong doings with a fear of being 'weak'. It's tough being a parent and as good as you think you are..out of your sight who knows what they are getting involved in..getting influenced in...even getting bullied into something they know is wrong but don't have the maturity to get out of it.

[Cherie]

]Easy, put more money into the police so there's more of a presence on the street without the need to resort to prejudice to invade people's privacy. [/B]It started with Cameron and it's only gotten worse with May, I remember a while ago, a police officer spoke out about the lack of vital resources needed to police the streets and how there's not enough funding to have enough people patrolling and keeping watch, it created quite a stir if I remember right.



People died so we could have the rights that we have, Stop and Search infringes on those rights and it encourages Racial Profiling which creates societal problems in itself as you create situations that are endorsed by the system in which certain races will be treated with more suspicion.

Searching people without cause for suspicion is beyond the pale, it makes me sad to see how little people care about their own rights to endorse it.

A person cannot support things like Stop and Search and then pretend they care about their rights or the sacrifices others have made to preserve them. It's irreconcilable.

I did say earlier in the thread more police are needed, but they need to have to relevant powers to do their job otherwise they are just a presence which isn't enough of a deterrant in the current climate in my opinion.

[Kazanne]

I saw an interview about this yesterday ,two policemen talking to a gang of youths,while one was talking the others were making gun gestures and giggling behind,so there is no respect from these people for the police ,they have no respect for anyone,I'm not sure a larger police presence will make much difference,but it's worth a try,but given the climate and mindset of these gangs if they want to kill,they will and no amount of police will stop them.I also noticed all of the gang had their faces covered !!

[user104658]

I saw an interview about this yesterday ,two policemen talking to a gang of youths,while one was talking the others were making gun gestures and giggling behind,so there is no respect from these people for the police ,they have no respect for anyone,I'm not sure a larger police presence will make much difference,but it's worth a try,but given the climate and mindset of these gangs if they want to kill,they will and no amount of police will stop them.I also noticed all of the gang had their faces covered !!Well exactly but this is also why random stop and search is unlikely to actually make any difference to the numbers hurt and killed in knife crime... The people who are likely to go so far as to actually stab someone aren't going to be deterred by the possibility of being searched, because they just don't care... They'll happily take the risk and carry one anyway.

[user104658]

Searching people without cause for suspicion is beyond the pale, it makes me sad to see how little people care about their own rights to endorse it.

Using my well-documented and incredible psychic powers, I have a theory on that one. It's NOT that people don't care about their own rights. They claim that they would be happy to be searched / have their kids searched "for the greater good" but in reality, they would be highly offended to be searched. What people actually believe, is that they're not "that sort" of person and so stop and search will not happen to them or affect them. Their own privacy will not be affected, only the privacy of "those dodgy sorts you see walking around".

That, combined with a complete lack of understanding that freely handing over these rights to the state doesn't necessarily stop "when you say so". Totally overlooking the fact that one day they'll probably be like "Oh OK well yes, THIS one is a step too far for me" but because of earlier compliance en-masse, the response will be "lol too late, this snowball is well and truly rolling now".

[Ammi]

..I think respect for the police also comes with community policing from an early age as the ‘first solution’...so that small children don’t see police as the ‘enemy’, as it were but... they do see the importance of policing is society and respect it..and that community policing progresses to teen years etc the police being active in community projects and focus for young people...all working together and all respecting each other...

[bots]

Apart from the obvious invasion into personal privacy, the act of stop and search is demeaning to the individual. It implies guilt whether proven or not.

If we could put 100% trust into the police and know that they always acted with the best intentions, then at a stretch it could be seen as acceptable. Unfortunately, the police are not made up of 100% saints. Some of the biggest crooks in the land find their way into the police force. I could also see this type of activity being contracted out to the private sector, which opens it up even more to abuse.

While it may seem like a quick fix, I think it would ultimately lead to more problems than it solved. It's never a good idea to implement new procedures to combat a single type of event, because it never ends up working out that way. The knock on effects would be considerable

[Cherie]

Funnily enough when I was out and about yesterday I saw two vehicles pulled over by the police :omgno: could have been they just had a tail light missing though...

[Livia]

My brother was stopped and searched countless times when we were younger and living in London. He never once asked "is it because I'm Jewish?". The fact is that knife crime and other violent crimes are, in a lot of cases, black on black crime.

I'd like to see more black police officers and more accountability from the families of underage young people caught up in this kind of life. Everyone gets blamed, the government, the police... but never the parents or parent that is responsible for their child till they're 18.

[Cherie]

Occasionally at my sons College they have those arches that you walk though that pick up if you are carryng a knife, he says most of the students are happy to walk through it..and as a parent I don't have an issue with it either, I don't want to think of my son sitting next to someone who is carrying a knife in class

[Tom4784]

I did say earlier in the thread more police are needed, but they need to have to relevant powers to do their job otherwise they are just a presence which isn't enough of a deterrant in the current climate in my opinion.

Of course it would, people aren't likely to kill each other as much in the view of a police officer. Stop and Search is just a rights eroding plaster on a bullet wound that is a lack of police presence on the streets.

[user104658]

Occasionally at my sons College they have those arches that you walk though that pick up if you are carryng a knife, he says most of the students are happy to walk through it..and as a parent I don't have an issue with it either, I don't want to think of my son sitting next to someone who is carrying a knife in class

There's a pretty big difference between metal detectors and having someone actively stick their hands inside your coat / up and down your body, though. The biggest concern is the invasion of personal space, surely. Some people are fine with that, and that's great... but some people are really not OK with strangers having the right to pat them up and down.

[Cherie]

There's a pretty big difference between metal detectors and having someone actively stick their hands inside your coat / up and down your body, though. The biggest concern is the invasion of personal space, surely. Some people are fine with that, and that's great... but some people are really not OK with strangers having the right to pat them up and down.



Fair enough, though if you get pulled over at the airport if you want to proceed you have to put it, and if you don't then its bye bye your holidays, the uptake at airports is 100 per cent, is it so much to ask to stop some kid being murdered? it would take a few seconds out of your day.

[Kazanne]

My brother was stopped and searched countless times when we were younger and living in London. He never once asked "is it because I'm Jewish?". The fact is that knife crime and other violent crimes are, in a lot of cases, black on black crime.

I'd like to see more black police officers and more accountability from the families of underage young people caught up in this kind of life. Everyone gets blamed, the government, the police... but never the parents or parent that is responsible for their child till they're 18.

It annoys me when everyone gets blamed other than the culprits themselves,when they are found to be carrying weapons they should be given more than a slap on the wrist,and their parents brought to book too.

[user104658]

[/B]


Fair enough, though if you get pulled over at the airport if you want to proceed you have to put it, and if you don't then its bye bye your holidays, the uptake at airports is 100 per cent, is it so much to ask to stop some kid being murdered? it would take a few seconds out of your day.

The issue is consent, though... you know that it's going to happen at the airport, so by choosing to fly, you consent to going through security checks. It's totally different to being pulled aside whilst walking down a public street. And the issue really isn't how long it takes.

[bots]

[/B]


Fair enough, though if you get pulled over at the airport if you want to proceed you have to put it, and if you don't then its bye bye your holidays, the uptake at airports is 100 per cent, is it so much to ask to stop some kid being murdered? it would take a few seconds out of your day.

We always say that we shouldn't change our way of life when there are terrorist incidents, because to combat it would reduce our human rights. Combating knife crime through stop an search is exactly the same thing, so clearly it can't be acceptable either.

I want to cut out knife crime as much as anyone else, but stop and search isn't the solution.

[Cherie]

The issue is consent, though... you know that it's going to happen at the airport, so by choosing to fly, you consent to going through security checks. It's totally different to being pulled aside whilst walking down a public street. And the issue really isn't how long it takes.

okay make it a stop and search with concent then, you are assuming people wouldn't give their consent, Germyle consented yesterday and you cut him down, saying oh you say that now etc etc... pretty sure most people living in an area where knife crime is prevalent would give consent, no body seems to have an issue with the privacy being invaded when they are off on their jollies, it's more like get it done, where's the bar

[Cherie]

We always say that we shouldn't change our way of life when there are terrorist incidents, because to combat it would reduce our human rights. Combating knife crime through stop an search is exactly the same thing, so clearly it can't be acceptable either.

I want to cut out knife crime as much as anyone else, but stop and search isn't the solution.

what is the solution then and please don't say more police on the streets as that is pretty obvious :laugh:

education in the future, though tbf knife crime has been spoken about for years in schools and that hasn't really helped

[bots]

what is the solution then and please don't say more police on the streets as that is pretty obvious :laugh:

education in the future, though tbf knife crime has been spoken about for years in schools and that hasn't really helped

i would offer a knife amnesty where people were encouraged to hand over obvious weapons. Then I would come down very hard on anyone that committed a knife crime. If the crime gets a life changing sentence, people will soon stop carrying them. It won't stop the hardened few, but it will stop the majority which should be what it's all about.

[user104658]

okay make it a stop and search with concent then, you are assuming people wouldn't give their consent, Germyle consented yesterday and you cut him down, saying oh you say that now etc etc... pretty sure most people living in an area where knife crime is prevalent would give consent, no body seems to have an issue with the privacy being invaded when they are off on their jollies, it's more like get it done, where's the bar

It's not exactly consent if there are obvious implications to refusing though, is it?

"Excuse me sir, can I search you for illegal items?"

"No."

"OH then I assume you ARE carrying illegal items :suspect:"



I agree with the above; much harsher penalties for those who are caught, combined with searches if there is good reason to suspect someone is carrying a weapon (like it's been spotted, or a tip-off), would make a far better deterrent than random stop and searches.

[Cherie]

It's not exactly consent if there are obvious implications to refusing though, is it?

"Excuse me sir, can I search you for illegal items?"

"No."

"OH then I assume you ARE carrying illegal items :suspect:"



I agree with the above; much harsher penalties for those who are caught, combined with searches if there is good reason to suspect someone is carrying a weapon (like it's been spotted, or a tip-off), would make a far better deterrent than random stop and searches.

so they can't carry out the search but it identifies the person as someone of interest?

[user104658]

so they can't carry out the search but it identifies the person as someone of interest?

Right, so now a totally innocent person is under suspicion of illegal activity for refusing a search, as they assume it means he must have something on him, when actually he's just not OK with PC Bob rummaging around in his pants for any reason.

I have never carried a knife or any other weapon in my life, but I would 100% refuse to be searched.

[chuff me dizzy]

True Jaxie, and what is being overlooked by some on here, is that the very POSSIBILITY of being 'Stopped and Searched' could be ENOUGH of a DETERRENT to dissuade some young people from carrying knives or other lethal weapons and as the maxim goes; If you pack a gun you'll end up using it one day', so just ONE child dissuaded justifies 'Stop and Search' - in my opinion.

:wavey:

:clap1:

[Cherie]

i would offer a knife amnesty where people were encouraged to hand over obvious weapons. Then I would come down very hard on anyone that committed a knife crime. If the crime gets a life changing sentence, people will soon stop carrying them. It won't stop the hardened few, but it will stop the majority which should be what it's all about.


It would be a start, though I think there was an amnesty recently if memory serves me correctly

[Withano]

Lets be real though, theres a very direct link between recent police budget cuts, and the recent increased knife crime. You guys are looking too far for a solution, sometimes, it really is the obvious one.

[Brillopad]

My brother was stopped and searched countless times when we were younger and living in London. He never once asked "is it because I'm Jewish?". The fact is that knife crime and other violent crimes are, in a lot of cases, black on black crime.

I'd like to see more black police officers and more accountability from the families of underage young people caught up in this kind of life. Everyone gets blamed, the government, the police... but never the parents or parent that is responsible for their child till they're 18.

Completely agree. Taking personal responsibility for you and yours instead of trying to blame others all the time is commendable. Get fed-up with those constantly blaming everyone but themselves.

[Brillopad]

Lets be real though, theres a very direct link between recent police budget cuts, and the recent increased knife crime. You guys are looking too far for a solution, sometimes, it really is the obvious one.

Yeah the obvious one to most is the attitudes of those that carry and use them. They are ultimately to blame.

[Withano]

Yeah the obvious one to most is the attitudes of those that carry and use them. They are ultimately to blame.

I have no idea how this is supposed to make sense sorry.

[Beso]

I have no idea how this is supposed to make sense sorry.

You obvioysly think brillo means the blacks.....


I think they mean the gangs and the scum that carry knives.

[Brillopad]

You obvioysly think brillo means the blacks.....


I think they mean the gangs and the scum that carry knives.

I meant anyone who carries a knife with the intention of using it.

[Beso]

I meant anyone who carries a knife with the intention of using it.

Horrid thought. Being stabbed.

My worst nightmare to be honest. Give me a good old fashioned kicking any day..but bring a knife to a fight makes you a coward.

[Cherie]

Right, so now a totally innocent person is under suspicion of illegal activity for refusing a search, as they assume it means he must have something on him, when actually he's just not OK with PC Bob rummaging around in his pants for any reason.

I have never carried a knife or any other weapon in my life, but I would 100% refuse to be searched.

Good for you, many people wouldn't have an issue, maybe if there was a bit more stopping people there wouldn't be so many people driving around without insurance or over the limit either.

[kirklancaster]

Good for you, many people wouldn't have an issue, maybe if there was a bit more stopping people there wouldn't be so many people driving around without insurance or over the limit either.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Ammi]

...wasn’t stop and search ..(..partly, as well as the police killing of Mark Duggan..)...that sparked the protests that led to the London Riots..?...wasn’t it alleged physical violence, racial abuse and prejudice against individuals and families etc that was apparently happening with some members of the police force...’under the guise of stop and search’....

[Ammi]

..I guess rather than preventing..it could be potentially replacing one serious issue with another serious issue...

[Brillopad]

Good for you, many people wouldn't have an issue, maybe if there was a bit more stopping people there wouldn't be so many people driving around without insurance or over the limit either.

I really don’t get all this anti-search attitude. Although I accept some police may have abused it, it is still a necessary function for the greater good. Frustrating as it may be for those who may feel ‘targeted’ - if it saves lives, the benefits to us all surely outweigh the frustration and inconvenience for some.

[Beso]

Oh they will riot in the end, rather than address the issues closer to home.

[bots]

Good for you, many people wouldn't have an issue, maybe if there was a bit more stopping people there wouldn't be so many people driving around without insurance or over the limit either.

There is no need to stop anyone to check for insurance or anything else car related. Police cars have number plate scanners as do street cameras that check these details without the need to stop anyone.

[Beso]

There is no need to stop anyone to check for insurance or anything else car related. Police cars have number plate scanners as do street cameras that check these details without the need to stop anyone.

In some areas, but what about the areas that dont...

And they didnt stop the old soak mcpartlin did they.

[Cherie]

There is no need to stop anyone to check for insurance or anything else car related. Police cars have number plate scanners as do street cameras that check these details without the need to stop anyone.

Yes I do know that cameras are meant to do this job now BOTS, I have noticed I no longer need a tax disc as well :idc: but like Parminion says they can't pick up drink drivers and many still get away with no insurance or tax, camera or no

[bots]

Yes I do know that cameras are meant to do this job now BOTS, I have noticed I no longer need a tax disc as well :idc: but like Parminion says they can't pick up drink drivers and many still get away with no insurance or tax, camera or no

It's not a difficult thing to link a breath tester to the drive capability of the car. Something that car manufacturers could easily do :idc:

[user104658]

Good for you, many people wouldn't have an issue, maybe if there was a bit more stopping people there wouldn't be so many people driving around without insurance or over the limit either.

Well... Good for them? What heroes, selflessly passing over their liberty to the government. Shall we set up cameras in their living rooms too? I mean... Why not? If they're not doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to fear!

Perhaps it could be some sort of voluntary programme. All of you upstanding, morally better folks can have a symbol to identify you as willing to be searched - perhaps a white hat, or a nice tall horse - and then you can be searched and monitored, and the rest of us who value the central pillars of freedom can continue about our day unmolested by the authorities.

[user104658]

I really don’t get all this anti-search attitude.

No, you don't, a lot of people don't "get it" and never will. But thankfully, you don't get to tell other people what they should or shouldn't be OK with.

[Livia]

Don't stop and search anyone then. Let them all stab each other. Is that your answer, TS? Pussyfoot around while young people are cutting holes in each other.

[user104658]

Don't stop and search anyone then. Let them all stab each other. Is that your answer, TS? Pussyfoot around while young people are cutting holes in each other.No, stop and search people if there is good reason to do so, such as indication that something is being concealed, a tip off, or other suspicious behavior, just like pulling over a car. As I've already said three or four times on this thread.

Will we put cameras in your living room too, Livia?

[chuff me dizzy]

Top and bottom of it all is the police are too scared of being called racist ,so they've got sloppy ,time to toughen up, and seeing as most of these stabbings are being done by black youths with covered faces ,its THEM the police must target and if the do gooders moan then so be it

[Livia]

No, stop and search people if there is good reason to do so, such as indication that something is being concealed, a tip off, or other suspicious behavior, just like pulling over a car. As I've already said three or four times on this thread.

Will we put cameras in your living room too, Livia?

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

[Livia]

Top and bottom of it all is the police are too scared of being called racist ,so they've got sloppy ,time to toughen up, and seeing as most of these stabbings are being done by black youths with covered faces ,its THEM the police must target and if the do gooders moan then so be it

I agree. And many of the people who called for an end to stop and search are the same people now saying it should be widened. And if the black community is being targeted, well, the fact is that it is mostly black people who are stabbing each other.

[user104658]

Top and bottom of it all is the police are too scared of being called racist ,so they've got sloppy ,time to toughen up, and seeing as most of these stabbings are being done by black youths with covered faces ,its THEM the police must target and if the do gooders moan then so be it

If someone is behaving suspiciously / covering their face / clearly concealing something then by all means, treat that person with suspicion, no matter who they are or what colour they are. Perhaps police are stand-offish if it then seems like they're targeting a disproportionate number of one group, worried of being accused of racial profiling even if they are not.

But that doesn't translate into "Just search more people at random, especially black kids!" if there's no indication that there's a good reason to do so?

The racial profiling of people who are doing nothing but minding their own business is a very real problem, and it LEADS to even bigger problems. Pretending that this isn't the case is just stubborn and dangerous.

[user104658]

What the hell has that got to do with anything?You would be much safer in your home if there was a camera in your living room hooked up to the police.

I'm trying to illustrate that (I hope...) you WOULDN'T want that, even though it makes you safer, because it would be an invasion of privacy... so there clearly is "a line" somewhere, where we say "I don't want that to happen even though it would make everyone safer".

[Cherie]

Well... Good for them? What heroes, selflessly passing over their liberty to the government. Shall we set up cameras in their living rooms too? I mean... Why not? If they're not doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to fear!

Perhaps it could be some sort of voluntary programme. All of you upstanding, morally better folks can have a symbol to identify you as willing to be searched - perhaps a white hat, or a nice tall horse - and then you can be searched and monitored, and the rest of us who value the central pillars of freedom can continue about our day unmolested by the authorities.

Not sure what your issue is your every move is followed anyway by cameras when you are out, and on your PC when you are at home :laugh:

I wouldn't call a pat down being molested, that is hysterical on your part

[Livia]

You would be much safer in your home if there was a camera in your living room hooked up to the police.

I'm trying to illustrate that (I hope...) you WOULDN'T want that, even though it makes you safer, because it would be an invasion of privacy... so there clearly is "a line" somewhere, where we say "I don't want that to happen even though it would make everyone safer".

The occupants of my house are not trying to cut lumps off each other so your analogy is shaky at best.

Maybe the police could just say, deal with it yourselves then. Because you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

[user104658]

Not sure what your issue is your every move is followed anyway by cameras when you are out

Yes but they don't stop you, touch you, or to her wise interfere with you in any way.



and on your PC when you are at home [emoji23]

You are incorrect there :whistle:


I wouldn't call a pat down being molested, that is hysterical on your part

Again, good for you, your body is your body so feel free to submit to whatever you want to submit to. You don't get to decide that for me or for anyone else. My body my choice, Cherie.

[Livia]

Yes but they don't stop you, touch you, or to her wise interfere with you in any way.





You are incorrect there :whistle:




Again, good for you, your body is your body so feel free to submit to whatever you want to submit to. You don't get to decide that for me or for anyone else. My body my choice, Cherie.


So what's your answer then, TS? How are you going to stop what is essentially black on black crime, without stopping any black people? I'd be so interested to hear...

[user104658]

The occupants of my house are not trying to cut lumps off each other so your analogy is shaky at best.

Maybe the police could just say, deal with it yourselves then. Because you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.I'm not for a second trying to pretend that there isn't a problem with knife crime or that nothing should be done, I'm just saying that edging towards authoritarianism is unlikely to be a good solution and comes with a whole HOST of other problems. The whole "If we stop and search more people and get their knives, less people will be stabbed!" thing seems like a massive over-simplification of a complex issue. Like trying to perform spinal surgery with a claw hammer.

[Brillopad]

Yes but they don't stop you, touch you, or to her wise interfere with you in any way.





You are incorrect there :whistle:




Again, good for you, your body is your body so feel free to submit to whatever you want to submit to. You don't get to decide that for me or for anyone else. My body my choice, Cherie.

You don’t need to quote ‘my body, my choice’ to women - they have had to scream that for decades to defend themselves from rape’ sexual assault’ the right to an abortion etc - they are pretty much experts on that one. :shrug:

[Livia]

You don’t need to quote ‘my body, my choice’ to women - they have had to scream that for decades to defend themselves from rape’ sexual assault’ the right to an abortion etc - they are pretty much experts on that one. :shrug:

Well said, sister!

[user104658]

So what's your answer then, TS? How are you going to stop what is essentially black on black crime, without stopping any black people? I'd be so interested to hear...I was actually saying that the police SHOULDN'T be afraid to stop black people, if its black people who are behaving suspiciously. I'm saying stop whoever is suspicious. And also that simple "being black" is not a measure of suspicion.

As for a "solution", well, for a start, we're not talking about "stopping it" are we. Realistically, stop and search isn't going to stop knife crime. Would be great if something could, but nothing will. The aim is to REDUCE knife crime and crime in general, and there are clearly countless more creative ways to get knives (and kids in general) off the streets than authoritarian policing?

[user104658]

You don’t need to quote ‘my body, my choice’ to women - they have had to scream that for decades to defend themselves from rape’ sexual assault’ the right to an abortion etc - they are pretty much experts on that one. :shrug:Well then they should understand.

[Kazanne]

I'm not for a second trying to pretend that there isn't a problem with knife crime or that nothing should be done, I'm just saying that edging towards authoritarianism is unlikely to be a good solution and comes with a whole HOST of other problems. The whole "If we stop and search more people and get their knives, less people will be stabbed!" thing seems like a massive over-simplification of a complex issue. Like trying to perform spinal surgery with a claw hammer.

So what would YOU do to help stop it.

[user104658]

So what would YOU do to help stop it.Me personally? A complete overhaul of the tragic western socioeconomic system that has lead to an underclass that is constantly embroiled in crime and violence.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to tackle that, though.

So in the meantime, if you're looking for a simple answer; creative and engaging community policing and engagement, which has been PROVEN to be effective in several violent US cities.

[Livia]

I'm not for a second trying to pretend that there isn't a problem with knife crime or that nothing should be done, I'm just saying that edging towards authoritarianism is unlikely to be a good solution and comes with a whole HOST of other problems. The whole "If we stop and search more people and get their knives, less people will be stabbed!" thing seems like a massive over-simplification of a complex issue. Like trying to perform spinal surgery with a claw hammer.

Well, I'd say I don't know enough about how the police operate to tro to tell them their job. They're the ones who have to face people who may be armed, and I don't want to tie their hands for fear of upsetting people. Take a leaf out of the Jews' book! You can be as big an arsehole to them as you like, and it doesn't matter. Even when the problem is with one of the two leading political parties! But don't ask a young black man to empty his pockets.

The black community must be fed up with burying their young men (and women), while white people stand round wringing their hands, afraid of being called racist.

[Brillopad]

Well then they should understand.

Not necessarily - I don’t see how stop and search could be anywhere near as intrusive and upsetting as any of the examples I gave.

[Livia]

Me personally? A complete overhaul of the tragic western socioeconomic system that has lead to an underclass that is constantly embroiled in crime and violence.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to tackle that, though.

So in the meantime, if you're looking for a simple answer; creative and engaging community policing and engagement, which has been PROVEN to be effective in several violent US cities.

Just in this country? Or are you taking on the whole world?

And if you want to see real underclass, you need to go east, not west.

[user104658]

Not necessarily - I don’t see how stop and search could be anywhere near as intrusive and upsetting as any of the examples I gave.

It's a slippery slope that doesn't need to be complicated, surely.

"No one gets to tell anyone else what they shouldn't and should be OK with when it comes to their body and personal space."

That is ALL that needs to be said.



Just in this country? Or are you taking on the whole world?

And if you want to see real underclass, you need to go east, not west.

The whole world, but then, most of the world has been heavily affected by the Western socioeconomic system siphoning up the majority of the money and resources.

[Kazanne]

Me personally? A complete overhaul of the tragic western socioeconomic system that has lead to an underclass that is constantly embroiled in crime and violence.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to tackle that, though.

So in the meantime, if you're looking for a simple answer; creative and engaging community policing and engagement, which has been PROVEN to be effective in several violent US cities.

I don't fully agree with that,some youths do not listen,do not want to be part of society,they want something for nothing and get it to a certain extent,they all have much more than some people who live quite a happy and peaceful life,a lot is down to parenting or lack of,but not always some kids just like to be intimidating and violent,I would lock them up for a few months if they were found with weapons if stop and search doesn't work.

[bots]

Me personally? A complete overhaul of the tragic western socioeconomic system that has lead to an underclass that is constantly embroiled in crime and violence.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to tackle that, though.

So in the meantime, if you're looking for a simple answer; creative and engaging community policing and engagement, which has been PROVEN to be effective in several violent US cities.

Being poor doesn't make people carry knives and want to attack and kill other people. It is very much a case of morality or lack thereof

[chuff me dizzy]

I agree. And many of the people who called for an end to stop and search are the same people now saying it should be widened. And if the black community is being targeted, well, the fact is that it is mostly black people who are stabbing each other.

Yes thats spot on :clap1:

[user104658]

Being poor doesn't make people carry knives and want to attack and kill other people. It is very much a case of morality or lack thereofAre you suggesting that levels of violent crime aren't linked to the economic status of an area? It doesn't MAKE people engage in criminal or violent activity, no, but it does increase the likelihood. That is just a flat out statistical fact?

[Brillopad]

It's a slippery slope that doesn't need to be complicated, surely.

"No one gets to tell anyone else what they shouldn't and should be OK with when it comes to their body and personal space."

That is ALL that needs to be said. I


The whole world, but then, most of the world has been heavily affected by the Western socioeconomic system siphoning up the majority of the money and resources.


Maybe it is a slippery slope - that gets abused by people such as students demanding ‘safe spaces’ at uni. There will always be those that take it too far.

I believe a good measure of the potential outcomes for the majority for any do’s or dont’s in these situations is what really matters ie Do - preventing crimes such as murder against, Don’t - inconvenience or taking personal offence.

In any such situation there will always be disagreement but the safety of the majority should usually be the deciding factor.

[chuff me dizzy]

Are you suggesting that levels of violent crime aren't linked to the economic status of an area? It doesn't MAKE people engage in criminal or violent activity, no, but it does increase the likelihood. That is just a flat out statistical fact?

Im sure there are a lot of law abiding people in the places you talk about, who go about their daily lives in a civilised way .. Opening a youth club isn't going to solve anything

[user104658]

I don't fully agree with that,some youths do not listen,do not want to be part of society,they want something for nothing and get it to a certain extent,they all have much more than some people who live quite a happy and peaceful life,a lot is down to parenting or lack of,but not always some kids just like to be intimidating and violent,I would lock them up for a few months if they were found with weapons if stop and search doesn't work.Right but again the goal isn't "zero violent crime" because that is a completely unrealistic goal... There will always be violent crime. Stop and search isn't going to end violent crime, no one thinks it will end violent crime, the goal of it is to REDUCE violent crime, and that goal can be achieved in other ways.

Hell even if they would COMBINE the two, it would be far better to have engaged familiar community police who can call someone by name and ask them to comply, rather than a faceless automaton shouting "HALT!". But there appear to be no such goals... Just people wanting harder, stricter authority figures marching around the streets. What a world.

[user104658]

Im sure there are a lot of law abiding people in the places you talk about, who go about their daily lives in a civilised way .. Opening a youth club isn't going to solve anythingI'm sure there are, who said there aren't? And who said anything about opening a youth club?

Did you quite the wrong post?

[Cherie]

Yes but they don't stop you, touch you, or to her wise interfere with you in any way.





You are incorrect there :whistle:




Again, good for you, your body is your body so feel free to submit to whatever you want to submit to. You don't get to decide that for me or for anyone else. My body my choice, Cherie.

and likewise you don't get to decide for me, where am i deciding for you? I am giving an opinion, not passing a bill through parliament, you tried to decide for Germyle on this very thread, you are the one dictating, not me.

[Tom4784]

Top and bottom of it all is the police are too scared of being called racist ,so they've got sloppy ,time to toughen up, and seeing as most of these stabbings are being done by black youths with covered faces ,its THEM the police must target and if the do gooders moan then so be it

Yay! Racial profiling! :clap1:

It's very easy to be for Stop and Search when you're white and won't be affected by it. It's incredibly easy to preach the restrictions of people's right to freedom and privacy when it's not your own rights at risk.

It's bad enough to throw away your rights for a false sense of freedom but to endorse throwing away rights of an entire race just because of prejudice is a whole other level. It's completely and utterly wrong.

[Beso]

Yay! Racial profiling! :clap1:

It's very easy to be for Stop and Search when you're white and won't be affected by it. It's incredibly easy to preach the restrictions of people's right to freedom and privacy when it's not your own rights at risk.

It's bad enough to throw away your rights for a false sense of freedom but to endorse throwing away rights of an entire race just because of prejudice is a whole other level. It's completely and utterly wrong.

An entire race..just what is your game?


You know as well as i do that old helena or comfort wont be getting stopped in her way back from sainsburys...niether will suited up desmond on his way to and from work....

The people who will will be riding mopeds..or hanging about in small gangs all hooded up.

[Withano]

Most domestic violence and household murders are committed by the middle aged. I wonder if they’ll all be okay with police showing up at their house at random times to check everything is okay. Any middle aged person in the thread, particularly those that are in favour of stop and search wanna lemme know?

Just wondering if that will cross some sort of privacy infringement or not.

[Cherie]

Most domestic violence and household murders are committed by the middle aged. I wonder if they’ll all be okay with police showing up at their house at random times to check everything is okay. Any middle aged person in the thread, particularly those that are in favour of stop and search wanna lemme know?

Just wondering if that will cross some sort of privacy infringement or not.

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever given homes are private property

[user104658]

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever given homes are private propertyTo make the analogy work then; would you be OK with middle aged couples being stopped at random by officers saying "We just want to check that you're not beating your wife, we'll need to check her over. I know it's intrusive but a lot of people are abused and we can catch a lot of offenders this way... If you have nothing to hide you won't mind."

Its an extreme example but it is similar logic, surely? I mean... Doing that probably WOULD catch abusers and stop them.

[Niamh.]

To make the analogy work then; would you be OK with middle aged couples being stopped at random by officers saying "We just want to check that you're not beating your wife, we'll need to check her over. I know it's intrusive but a lot of people are abused and we can catch a lot of offenders this way... If you have nothing to hide you won't mind."

Its an extreme example but it is similar logic, surely? I mean... Doing that probably WOULD catch abusers and stop them.

:laugh2:

I shouldn't laugh that's actually an excellent example. I was kind of leaning towards thinking it should be allowed but that's made me rethink it I have to say :think:

[Withano]

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever given homes are private property
I thought it was a good example because knife crime is commited in public, and household violence is not? So I didnt mind the lack of consistency there.. however, TS’s example is more of a parallel, and makes stop and search sound even more ridiculous than it already comes across! Answer that instead.
To make the analogy work then; would you be OK with middle aged couples being stopped at random by officers saying "We just want to check that you're not beating your wife, we'll need to check her over. I know it's intrusive but a lot of people are abused and we can catch a lot of offenders this way... If you have nothing to hide you won't mind."

Its an extreme example but it is similar logic, surely? I mean... Doing that probably WOULD catch abusers and stop them.

[Brillopad]

To make the analogy work then; would you be OK with middle aged couples being stopped at random by officers saying "We just want to check that you're not beating your wife, we'll need to check her over. I know it's intrusive but a lot of people are abused and we can catch a lot of offenders this way... If you have nothing to hide you won't mind."

Its an extreme example but it is similar logic, surely? I mean... Doing that probably WOULD catch abusers and stop them.

It’s a ridiculous comparison. Police are employed to police public areas in an attempt to keep the general public safe. If stop and search helps protect all of us it is warranted. They can’t police private homes unless invited in or a crime is in progress.

[Brillopad]

I thought it was a good example because knife crime is commited in public, and household violence is not? So I didnt mind the lack of consistency there.. however, TS’s example is more of a parallel, and makes stop and search sound even more ridiculous than it already comes across! Answer that instead.

The difference being that it wouldn’t be the potential ‘offender’ being searched it would be the potential ‘victim’.

[Niamh.]

The difference being that it wouldn’t be the potential ‘offender’ being searched it would be the potential ‘victim’.

He still has a point though tbf, I really think people aren't bothered when they're not the targeted demographic ...........because they're not the targeted demographic. like I said I was reading this thread trying to decide where I stood on it and was leaning towards thinking it should be ok but then when i read that and Withanos posts and suddenly it was my demographic, i did start to feel a bit uncomfortable about it.......so that answered my own question :laugh:

[Withano]

The difference being that it wouldn’t be the potential ‘offender’ being searched it would be the potential ‘victim’.

...wrong 999 out of 1000 (or probably lesser odds) it would be people who have never had anything to do with domestic violence crimes, but thats pretty consistent with the stop and search [for knifes] thing that you’re in favour of... so thats not a valid reason to be against this, but for that

I’ll take the ‘not in my house’ argument though. There is a difference there. We’ll change it for street searches to keep it consistent.

[Brillopad]

He still has a point though tbf, I really think people aren't bothered when they're not the targeted demographic ...........because they're not the targeted demographic. like I said I was reading this thread trying to decide where I stood on it and was leaning towards thinking it should be ok but then when i read that and Withanos posts and suddenly it was my demographic, i did start to feel a bit uncomfortable about it.......so that answered my own question :laugh:

Not for me - I see no significant comparison. You can’t enforce an intrusive search on a potential victim - a potential offender who may create victims is different.

[Withano]

Not for me - I see no significant comparison. You can’t enforce an intrusive search on a potential victim - a potential offender who may create victims is different.

The phrase black on blacks has been said over and over in this thread, which implies they are the victim, and the culprit.. several past and future victims would be stopped and searched.

I feel like you’re trying very hard to find a loop hole to avoid answering the question

[Niamh.]

Not for me - I see no significant comparison. You can’t enforce an intrusive search on a potential victim - a potential offender who may create victims is different.

Well considering knife crimes are usually carried out by teenagers on teenagers then you very well may be searching a potential victim.

[user104658]

Not for me - I see no significant comparison. You can’t enforce an intrusive search on a potential victim - a potential offender who may create victims is different.What's the difference between a potential victim who turns out NOT to be a victim, and a potential offender who turns out NOT to be an offender? Literally nothing at all; both are just normal people going about their day.

[user104658]

Well considering knife crimes are usually carried out by teenagers on teenagers then you very well may be searching a potential victim.Or even a past victim, which is a huge part of my issue with this. Before conducting a search, you can't have any idea if the person you're searching has been abused by an adult, a parent, or an authority figure... ESPECIALLY in the demographics that would be targeted... And what effect it might have on that person to be stopped by police and have their physical space invaded for no reason.

[Brillopad]

What's the difference between a potential victim who turns out NOT to be a victim, and a potential offender who turns out NOT to be an offender? Literally nothing at all; both are just normal people going about their day.

Because you are attempting to protect others. If a potential victim refuses to be searched for signs of assault you have no grounds for the search and therefore are not attempting to protect anyone.

[Beso]

Meh, bet you all happily get yer bags searched entering events.

[Brillopad]

The phrase black on blacks has been said over and over in this thread, which implies they are the victim, and the culprit.. several past and future victims would be stopped and searched.

I feel like you’re trying very hard to find a loop hole to avoid answering the question

I have no need to avoid answering any questions - if I don’r want to answer or can’t be bothered I won’t. Ok!

If that was the scenario then they would be their own worst enemies then wouldn’t they and I guess we wouldn’t be able to help them - if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces good luck to them.

[user104658]

Meh, bet you all happily get yer bags searched entering events.

Again, like airports, you CHOOSE to allow a search at an airport or at a private venue for an event. It's completely different from having a search FORCED on you in the street.

[Withano]

If that was the scenario then they would be their own worst enemies then wouldn’t they and I guess we wouldn’t be able to help them - if they want to cut off their noses to spite their faces good luck to them.

Well the same thing can be said for knife crime victims and domestic assault victims?

You’re adamant it isnt the same, and thats why only one group should be stopped and searched, but you havent really explained why they are different!

Are you okay with you, and others your age being stopped and search for crimes that barely any of you commit (purely on the grounds of there are still a few that do) or are you not okay with that?

I’m against people of all ages being stopped and searched for the record.

[Cherie]

To make the analogy work then; would you be OK with middle aged couples being stopped at random by officers saying "We just want to check that you're not beating your wife, we'll need to check her over. I know it's intrusive but a lot of people are abused and we can catch a lot of offenders this way... If you have nothing to hide you won't mind."

Its an extreme example but it is similar logic, surely? I mean... Doing that probably WOULD catch abusers and stop them.

That’s just ridiculous as well, but if they wanted to waste time doing that feel free

[Withano]

That’s just ridiculous as well, but if they wanted to waste time doing that feel free

(Both are ridiculous, that is the point) Why is it any more of a waste of time than stopping and searching for knifes?

[Cherie]

:laugh2:

I shouldn't laugh that's actually an excellent example. I was kind of leaning towards thinking it should be allowed but that's made me rethink it I have to say :think:

The Gardai do a lot of stops in Ireland to try and bring down deaths on the roads, do you have an issue with being stopped?

[Cherie]

(Both are ridiculous, that is the point) Why is it any more of a waste of time than stopping and searching for knifes?

Because there are areas where every kid carry’s one, if the kids interviewed are to be believed of course

[Withano]

Because there are areas where every kid carry’s one, if the kids interviewed are to be believed of course

Lots of bizarre hypotheticals to make. But if you’re okay with one demographic being stopped and searched for any reason, you should be okay with every demographic, including your own, being stopped and search for any reason.

Are you?

[Brillopad]

Well the same thing can be said for knife crime victims and domestic assault victims?

You’re adamant it isnt the same, and thats why only one group should be stopped and searched, but you havent really explained why they are different!

Are you okay with you, and others your age being stopped and search for crimes that barely any of you commit (purely on the grounds of there are still a few that do) or are you not okay with that?

I’m against people of all ages being stopped and searched for the record.

YES - I would be ok with it if it helped. As I don’t carry a knife, despite being a woman and part of a high risk group, or carry anything else I need to be worried about a quick frisk would not be an issue. Not much different to getting on a plane. I was frisked travelling aboard recently and I accept it as it is to protect everyone.

[chuff me dizzy]

YES - I would be ok with it if it helped. As I don’t carry a knife, despite being a woman and part of a high risk group, or carry anything else I need to be worried about a quick frisk would not be an issue. Not much different to getting on a plane. I was frisked travelling aboard recently and I accept it as it is to protect everyone.

I quite enjoy a quick frisk down esp if the customs officer is tall ,dark and stunningly handsome with big brown eyes and a nice tidy 6 pack :blush2:

[Withano]

YES - I would be ok with it if it helped. As I don’t carry a knife, despite being a woman and part of a high risk group, or carry anything else I need to be worried about a quick frisk would not be an issue. Not much different to getting on a plane. I was frisked travelling aboard recently and I accept it as it is to protect everyone.

Fair enough, at least you’re consistent. I mean, I disagree. Can’t think of much worse than living in a town where your Nan might get searched for buying a loaf of bread.. what kind of country is that? But if you’re fine with living in that place, then thats all I was asking... I just strongly disagree.

[Brillopad]

I quite enjoy a quick frisk down esp if the customs officer is tall ,dark and stunningly handsome with big brown eyes and a nice tidy 6 pack :blush2:

If he looks like Martin Kemp he can be my guest! :hehe:

[Kazanne]

I quite enjoy a quick frisk down esp if the customs officer is tall ,dark and stunningly handsome with big brown eyes and a nice tidy 6 pack :blush2:

:joker: Chuff ,you hussy you :hehe:

[Cherie]

Lots of bizarre hypotheticals to make. But if you’re okay with one demographic being stopped and searched for any reason, you should be okay with every demographic, including your own, being stopped and search for any reason.

Are you?

and I already said I was happy, next question?

[Cherie]

I quite enjoy a quick frisk down esp if the customs officer is tall ,dark and stunningly handsome with big brown eyes and a nice tidy 6 pack :blush2:

:joker:

[Cherie]

YES - I would be ok with it if it helped. As I don’t carry a knife, despite being a woman and part of a high risk group, or carry anything else I need to be worried about a quick frisk would not be an issue. Not much different to getting on a plane. I was frisked travelling aboard recently and I accept it as it is to protect everyone.

I was frisked leaving Boston by a female officer who thought she was auditioning for Orange is the New Black, talk about over egging her role for a tissue that was in my jeans pocket :laugh:

[Brillopad]

I was frisked leaving Boston by a female officer who thought she was auditioning for Orange is the New Black, talk about over egging her role for a tissue that was in my jeans pocket :laugh:


Always quite fancied Boston - is it nice, apart from the over-zealous female officer that is. :eek:

[chuff me dizzy]

If he looks like Martin Kemp he can be my guest! :hehe:

I wouldnt kick him out of my bed ,but Hugh Jackman would be my number 1 choice for a quick rub down :hehe:

[chuff me dizzy]

:joker: Chuff ,you hussy you :hehe:

Someones got to lighten the mood, theres some miserable sods about :joker:

[Niamh.]

The Gardai do a lot of stops in Ireland to try and bring down deaths on the roads, do you have an issue with being stopped?Breath tests you mean, well I don't love it or anything but I'm pretty sure that's something that every driver has to do

[Brillopad]

Breath tests you mean, well I don't love it or anything but I'm pretty sure that's something that every driver has to do

Hypothetically if there was a problem with women drink drivers would you object to being stopped. And if you did would you be angry with those women drivers creating the problems or the police for trying to keep the roads safe?

[Cherie]

Always quite fancied Boston - is it nice, apart from the over-zealous female officer that is. :eek:

Beautiful city... and very friendly people

[chuff me dizzy]

Breath tests you mean, well I don't love it or anything but I'm pretty sure that's something that every driver has to do

I got pulled over for a bulb out and got breathalyser, its what they do now he said

[Niamh.]

Hypothetically if there was a problem with women drink drivers would you object to being stopped. And if you did would you be angry with those women drivers creating the problems or the police for trying to keep the roads safe?Yes

[Niamh.]

I got pulled over for a bulb out and got breathalyser, its what they do now he saidA bulb out is actual reason to pull someone over though

[bots]

they have quite routine campaigns over the Christmas period where drivers are stopped and breathalyzed and I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about it, so maybe something similar for knives wouldn't be objected to :shrug:

[chuff me dizzy]

A bulb out is actual reason to pull someone over though

I mean the breath testing ,i hadn't had a drop for about 2 months when i was stopped

[chuff me dizzy]

they have quite routine campaigns over the Christmas period where drivers are stopped and breathalyzed and I don't remember hearing anyone complaining about it, so maybe something similar for knives wouldn't be objected to :shrug:

The more the merrier if it saves one life its worth it, and as I said pages ago if you're doing wrong you've nothing to fear

[michael21]

Do you think more stop and search would ease the knife crime in the uK ? It could be a good idea if done properly imo.

Can I stop.and search you sexy :amazed:

[kirklancaster]

I quite enjoy a quick frisk down esp if the customs officer is tall ,dark and stunningly handsome with big brown eyes and a nice tidy 6 pack :blush2:

I'm reasonably tall, dark, still considered handsome, and I have still a six-pack (but it's started to hide behind a 12 pack :laugh:) I have brown eyes so big that I have two bags underneath to support them :laugh: but I'm NO GOOD for you Chuff, because even if I did search you and my hands wandered I'm DAMNED if I'd REMEMBER just WHY. :hehe:

[Marsh.]

A lot of the issue seems to be absent fathers

A fair few people took offense in another thread when I said the best indicator of a successful life is being raised by two parents.

:umm2:

[Tom4784]

It's very easy to say you'd agree with it and wouldn't mind being searched in theory but in practice it's always going to be a different story.

[Beso]

It's very easy to say you'd agree with it and wouldn't mind being searched in theory but in practice it's always going to be a different story.


It would be exciting, nerve free and friendly for me.

[user104658]

Can I stop.and search you sexy :amazed:

I'm reasonably tall, dark, still considered handsome, and I have still a six-pack (but it's started to hide behind a 12 pack :laugh:) I have brown eyes so big that I have two bags underneath to support them :laugh: but I'm NO GOOD for you Chuff, because even if I did search you and my hands wandered I'm DAMNED if I'd REMEMBER just WHY. :hehe:

:umm2: this thread has gone to the dogs.

[Withano]

:umm2: this thread has gone to the dogs.

:joker:

Tibb has two modes: angry and horny

[kirklancaster]

:umm2: this thread has gone to the dogs.

Is this a complaint T.S.?

[kirklancaster]

Me personally? A complete overhaul of the tragic western socioeconomic system that has lead to an underclass that is constantly embroiled in crime and violence.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to tackle that, though.

So in the meantime, if you're looking for a simple answer; creative and engaging community policing and engagement, which has been PROVEN to be effective in several violent US cities.

Personally T.S I'm 'fed up' with the hackneyed old cliches which are all too regularly 'trotted out' about 'the poor', the 'underprivileged', the 'underclass'.

For the most part, in today's WELFARE SOCIETY, it is B.S.

There DEFINITELY is a section of society who ARE struggling to exist who have slipped through the net of our 'Welfare system'; some elderly, some mentally 'vulnerable' and some who are timid and confused who are not au fait with the help which is available to alleviate their 'plight'.

NONE of the above though are likely to be involved in the type of crime which this thread is about.

A HUGE percentage of violent crime is NOT borne of NEED but GREED.

Organised GANG violent crime IS 'Working Class' crime only by virtue of the fact that it is perpetrated by so-called 'Working Class villains even though MOST of them claim benefits and have NEVER worked a day in their lives, and just as in Chicago in the 20's and ever since, it is usually the result of criminals fighting to protect 'Manors' and the immense profits from Drug dealing, People Smuggling, Prostitution, and other crimes.

Expensive mobile phones, trainers, and heavy gold chains and other bling, BMW's and other expensive cars are NOT the possessions of the 'Poor and needy 'underclass.

Black people and Immigrants figure PROMINENTLY amongst this class of violent crime perpetrators as they do amongst the teenagers perpetrating the knife crimes which this thread is about.

There is a link between violent crimes and run-down areas but it is NOT any deprivation - financial or otherwise - which drives the criminal elements within those areas, no more than it is which drives multi-millionaires in Manhatten or Belgravia to commit multi-million-pound frauds, it is GREED.

As some other member pointed out, the VAST MAJORITY of residents within those 'deprived' areas remain law-abiding and by virtue of so doing do NOT enjoy the lifestyle of their criminal neighbours.

Any proposed correlation between violent crime and economic deprivation is bleeding heart, neo-Liberal B.S in my opinion.

[Kazanne]

Can I stop.and search you sexy :amazed:

Oh,as long as your hands are warm Michael:hehe:

[Cherie]

Again, like airports, you CHOOSE to allow a search at an airport or at a private venue for an event. It's completely different from having a search FORCED on you in the street.

Incorrect, you don't choose, you either do it or you stay at home or you stay out of the venue. Unless you are advocating that people would choose to stay in the UK and never travel again or would choose never to visit another theatre, concert, nightclub, that is not realistic

[bots]

i'm sure everyone saying they would be happy with it would have some threshold that made them unhappy too. For example, what happens if a female is required to be searched, but no female officer is available, so the lady has to be detained for some time in order to be searched. What happens, if on a simple trip to the shops, that you got stopped and searched every shop you entered, every 500 meters you walked. To say you would be fine with something without knowing the extent of the intrusion into your life is reckless to say the least.

[Cherie]

i'm sure everyone saying they would be happy with it would have some threshold that made them unhappy too. For example, what happens if a female is required to be searched, but no female officer is available, so the lady has to be detained for some time in order to be searched. What happens, if on a simple trip to the shops, that you got stopped and searched every shop you entered, every 500 meters you walked. To say you would be fine with something without knowing the extent of the intrusion into your life is reckless to say the least.

Of course it would have to be reasonable, the example is particularly outrageous unless you are saying there would be police waiting at every 500 metre mark to stop and search.

Also there seems to be a lot of finger pointing on this thread and "you say this now, but what if" kind of comments like people don't know their own minds

[bots]

Of course it would have to be reasonable, the example is particularly outrageous unless you are saying there would be police waiting at every 500 metre mark to stop and search.

Also there seems to be a lot of finger pointing on this thread and "you say this now, but what if" kind of comments like people don't know their own minds

I'm simply saying that before people rush to say they would be fine with something, look into the specifics of what they are signing up to. Things are never, ever simple and straightforward.

[user104658]

Personally T.S I'm 'fed up' with the hackneyed old cliches which are all too regularly 'trotted out' about 'the poor', the 'underprivileged', the 'underclass'.

For the most part, in today's WELFARE SOCIETY, it is B.S.

There DEFINITELY is a section of society who ARE struggling to exist who have slipped through the net of our 'Welfare system'; some elderly, some mentally 'vulnerable' and some who are timid and confused who are not au fait with the help which is available to alleviate their 'plight'.

NONE of the above though are likely to be involved in the type of crime which this thread is about.

A HUGE percentage of violent crime is NOT borne of NEED but GREED.

Organised GANG violent crime IS 'Working Class' crime only by virtue of the fact that it is perpetrated by so-called 'Working Class villains even though MOST of them claim benefits and have NEVER worked a day in their lives, and just as in Chicago in the 20's and ever since, it is usually the result of criminals fighting to protect 'Manors' and the immense profits from Drug dealing, People Smuggling, Prostitution, and other crimes.

Expensive mobile phones, trainers, and heavy gold chains and other bling, BMW's and other expensive cars are NOT the possessions of the 'Poor and needy 'underclass.

Black people and Immigrants figure PROMINENTLY amongst this class of violent crime perpetrators as they do amongst the teenagers perpetrating the knife crimes which this thread is about.

There is a link between violent crimes and run-down areas but it is NOT any deprivation - financial or otherwise - which drives the criminal elements within those areas, no more than it is which drives multi-millionaires in Manhatten or Belgravia to commit multi-million-pound frauds, it is GREED.

As some other member pointed out, the VAST MAJORITY of residents within those 'deprived' areas remain law-abiding and by virtue of so doing do NOT enjoy the lifestyle of their criminal neighbours.

Any proposed correlation between violent crime and economic deprivation is bleeding heart, neo-Liberal B.S in my opinion.This is where it starts to get really complicated though Kirk. You're right, it IS greed rather than need, but that's not the whole story. Also to claim that there's no link between the wealth levels in an area an crime is simply false; it's not an opinion, the statistics speak for themselves. Lower average income = higher crime in an area, and this has been the case throughout history.

But no its not need. Even if you take drugs out of the equation (need/greed with drugs I guess is a WHOLE other debate), you have to look at the question, why are people so greedy? And the answer for me is, our world is set up for greed. Our world is ALL about consumerism, and many people are just spiritually void... We're constantly hammered with advertising, both overt and subliminal, that says "you need X! You NEED Y! You REALLY REALLY need Z!" - most of it crap that no one actually needs. But that combined with this toxic consumerist idea that "the more flashy stuff you have, the better you are doing in life" creates real issues.

Take people who are down and out and miserable (for a whole HOST of reasons, but often sue to hopelessness) and tell them that they'll feel better if they have more "stuff", and you end up with dejected, morally depleted people who just want to "take stuff".

Again like the other thread... It's not really bleeding heart. I don't want to scoop these little cherubs up and give 'em a hug or anything like that. I just know that logically, the best way to tackle crime is to try to find out why people become criminals in the first place and nip it in the bud, rather than waiting until they're already on the streets carrying weapons and then try to tackle it there. Realistically, by that point its too late,you can stop them hurting someone today but when it comes down to it, that is still a violent PERSON willing to hurt other people for their own gain, and taking a knife away from them doesn't solve that problem.

[Ammi]

This is where it starts to get really complicated though Kirk. You're right, it IS greed rather than need, but that's not the whole story. Also to claim that there's no link between the wealth levels in an area an crime is simply false; it's not an opinion, the statistics speak for themselves. Lower average income = higher crime in an area, and this has been the case throughout history.

But no its not need. Even if you take drugs out of the equation (need/greed with drugs I guess is a WHOLE other debate), you have to look at the question, why are people so greedy? And the answer for me is, our world is set up for greed. Our world is ALL about consumerism, and many people are just spiritually void... We're constantly hammered with advertising, both overt and subliminal, that says "you need X! You NEED Y! You REALLY REALLY need Z!" - most of it crap that no one actually needs. But that combined with this toxic consumerist idea that "the more flashy stuff you have, the better you are doing in life" creates real issues.

Take people who are down and out and miserable (for a whole HOST of reasons, but often sue to hopelessness) and tell them that they'll feel better if they have more "stuff", and you end up with dejected, morally depleted people who just want to "take stuff".

Again like the other thread... It's not really bleeding heart. I don't want to scoop these little cherubs up and give 'em a hug or anything like that. I just know that logically, the best way to tackle crime is to try to find out why people become criminals in the first place and nip it in the bud, rather than waiting until they're already on the streets carrying weapons and then try to tackle it there. Realistically, by that point its too late,you can stop them hurting someone today but when it comes down to it, that is still a violent PERSON willing to hurt other people for their own gain, and taking a knife away from them doesn't solve that problem.

...I agree with your last paragraph particularly, TS...in terms of ‘gang culture’ and the environment some young people are raised in..?...yeah, stopping and searching may remove and ‘prevent’..a weapon being carried on specific occasions ....but it’s waiting until that weapon is being carried though so not really ‘preventing’....early intervention before gangs are joined etc and before weapons are carried is the only possible prevent really...which can be helped a lot with a focus on community policing in areas...

[Cherie]

I'm simply saying that before people rush to say they would be fine with something, look into the specifics of what they are signing up to. Things are never, ever simple and straightforward.

Equally you could argue the other case, before dismissing it out of hand, lets look at its viability in some shape or form.

[Tom4784]

Incorrect, you don't choose, you either do it or you stay at home or you stay out of the venue. Unless you are advocating that people would choose to stay in the UK and never travel again or would choose never to visit another theatre, concert, nightclub, that is not realistic

But that in itself is a choice, if you refuse a search from a police officer on the street you could get done for it. There is no choice in Stop and Search but there is a choice in choosing whether or not to go to a certain venue.

[Cherie]

But that in itself is a choice, if you refuse a search from a police officer on the street you could get done for it. There is no choice in Stop and Search but there is a choice in choosing whether or not to go to a certain venue.

Not really if you have paid for the ticket, if I go to the airport I expect my bag to go through xray, I don't generally don't expect to be patted down particularly when I have removed everything that could set the scanners off, so clearly they go off at random whether you have anything of note on your or not, is it a big deal? not really

[user104658]

Not really if you have paid for the ticket, if I go to the airport I expect my bag to go through xray, I don't generally don't expect to be patted down particularly when I have removed everything that could set the scanners off, so clearly they go off at random whether you have anything of note on your or not, is it a big deal? not reallyYou're not duty-bound to go through with something because you paid for a ticket... No one is going to arrest you for refusing to be searched on the way into "Wicked!". You'll just miss the show :think:. It is QUITE different, surely.

[bots]

Not really if you have paid for the ticket, if I go to the airport I expect my bag to go through xray, I don't generally don't expect to be patted down particularly when I have removed everything that could set the scanners off, so clearly they go off at random whether you have anything of note on your or not, is it a big deal? not really

The major difference is that everyone without exception has to go through airport security. There is no perceived special treatment. Any stop and search regime will end up being much more focused.

[Cherie]

You're not duty-bound to go through with something because you paid for a ticket... No one is going to arrest you for refusing to be searched on the way into "Wicked!". You'll just miss the show :think:. It is QUITE different, surely.

You won't refuse as you won't get your money back, no one is growing to throw away 50 quid for a quick bag search that is in everyone's interests

[Cherie]

The major difference is that everyone without exception has to go through airport security. There is no perceived special treatment. Any stop and search regime will end up being much more focused.

Well it shouldn't be

[bots]

[/B]

Well it shouldn't be

it is literally impossible to stop and search people with equality. Can you imagine a scenario where everyone driving on the M1 is stopped and searched at every junction on every trip. Multiply that across the other motorways. I mean, driving a car shouldn't exclude someone from being stopped an searched ... they could be carrying a knife

[user104658]

You won't refuse as you won't get your money back, no one is growing to throw away 50 quid for a quick bag search that is in everyone's interestsThat's really not the point, but we're going in circles so I guess this'll have to be another "agree to disagree" thread for me today.

[Cherie]

it is literally impossible to stop and search people with equality. Can you imagine a scenario where everyone driving on the M1 is stopped and searched at every junction on every trip. Multiply that across the other motorways. I mean, driving a car shouldn't exclude someone from being stopped an searched ... they could be carrying a knife

No body is advocating that! The idea of being stopped at all is enough to deter alot of people.

[Cherie]

That's really not the point, but we're going in circles so I guess this'll have to be another "agree to disagree" thread for me today.

No problem, we can't always agree :D:

[Tom4784]

Not really if you have paid for the ticket, if I go to the airport I expect my bag to go through xray, I don't generally don't expect to be patted down particularly when I have removed everything that could set the scanners off, so clearly they go off at random whether you have anything of note on your or not, is it a big deal? not really

Of course it's a choice, if you're going into a club you have the choice of not going to the club if you don't want to be searched, your life won't change for it. Going through metal detectors and such is basically part of the agreement of going to these places. Being randomly stopped on the street and being forced into a mandatory search is not the same thing especially since it's nothing but prejudice deciding who gets chosen or not.

[kirklancaster]

This is where it starts to get really complicated though Kirk. You're right, it IS greed rather than need, but that's not the whole story. Also to claim that there's no link between the wealth levels in an area an crime is simply false; it's not an opinion, the statistics speak for themselves. Lower average income = higher crime in an area, and this has been the case throughout history.

But no its not need. Even if you take drugs out of the equation (need/greed with drugs I guess is a WHOLE other debate), you have to look at the question, why are people so greedy? And the answer for me is, our world is set up for greed. Our world is ALL about consumerism, and many people are just spiritually void... We're constantly hammered with advertising, both overt and subliminal, that says "you need X! You NEED Y! You REALLY REALLY need Z!" - most of it crap that no one actually needs. But that combined with this toxic consumerist idea that "the more flashy stuff you have, the better you are doing in life" creates real issues.

Take people who are down and out and miserable (for a whole HOST of reasons, but often sue to hopelessness) and tell them that they'll feel better if they have more "stuff", and you end up with dejected, morally depleted people who just want to "take stuff".

Again like the other thread... It's not really bleeding heart. I don't want to scoop these little cherubs up and give 'em a hug or anything like that. I just know that logically, the best way to tackle crime is to try to find out why people become criminals in the first place and nip it in the bud, rather than waiting until they're already on the streets carrying weapons and then try to tackle it there. Realistically, by that point its too late,you can stop them hurting someone today but when it comes down to it, that is still a violent PERSON willing to hurt other people for their own gain, and taking a knife away from them doesn't solve that problem.

^ A GREAT post, T.S - and I DO agree with a lot of your points.

[michael21]

Oh,as long as your hands are warm Michael:hehe:

I don't need to use my hands :evilgrin: