[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

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

I'm sure there are, who said there aren't? And who said anything about opening a youth club?

Did you quite the wrong post?

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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





You are incorrect there




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]

Originally Posted by 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

Yay! Racial profiling!

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.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yay! Racial profiling!

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by 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.

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever given homes are private property

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever given homes are private property

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Withano

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’.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Parmy]

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

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]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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