[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

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

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 ) I have brown eyes so big that I have two bags underneath to support them 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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

A lot of the issue seems to be absent fathers

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

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.

[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.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by michael21

Can I stop.and search you sexy

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 ) I have brown eyes so big that I have two bags underneath to support them 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.

this thread has gone to the dogs.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

this thread has gone to the dogs.

Tibb has two modes: angry and horny

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

this thread has gone to the dogs.

Is this a complaint T.S.?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by michael21

Can I stop.and search you sexy

Oh,as long as your hands are warm Michael

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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...

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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 . It is QUITE different, surely.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 . 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

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

[/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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.