Together with an experienced colleague, she will approach a pair of known street criminals to ask them what they are doing in a particular location.
1. we know quite well that this happens to people who are not known criminals, but just black and young 2. even if they were known criminals, this is hardly top-level sleuthing, its just bad policing.
i read the rest of it, its nonsense: it employs the hand-wringing 'wont someone think of the youth violence" to justify other racial tactics that are glossed over or ignored in the article. the incidents of having to take down photos etc. is annoying if true, but policing a borough or area is more than just locking people up, police need to serve the community. i think this article is written from the perspective of someone 'doing' policing to an area rather than for it.
It's very interesting to see the people online backing Kevin Hurley, that'd give me pause before posting anything by him.
Also, The Spectator
I read the article. It appears to come down to an argument that "black people think the police are racist, the police are not racist, the police react to black people thinking they're racist".
The police are a truly marvellous organisation, according to the police themselves (and countless far right pundits) they have no problem with racism at all. Extraordinary to imagine just how perfect they all must be.
I don’t actually read the spectator by the way. This was shared on Facebook.
We’ve discussed the grouping of all police as a single entity as though they are a person before and clearly disagree so I won’t go into that any further.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned already the last few pages, but considering how vocal Stig Abell has been on the Sky News paper reviews of Boris Johnson, he half gave him an easy ride on the debuting Times Radio. You can’t slag him off for months and then when you finally get the bloke in front of you throw soft balls. He may then refuse to come on again because he finds the questioning too tough (Radio 4) but at least you conducted at least 1 worthwhile interview rather than 5 interviews of fluff. Otherwise you may as well just watch Boris be interviewed by Holly Willabooby on This Morning or The One Show.
Return_of_the_STAR wrote:We’ve discussed the grouping of all police as a single entity as though they are a person before and clearly disagree so I won’t go into that any further.
Speaking about the police service as a single entity is the only useful way of discussing the police as a concept within our society, I think. I've already mentioned why I feel ACAB is a valid statement; you entrust the police to enforce the law and the moment one of them is not held accountable, the rest of them are tainted.
I also think it's pointless speaking about individual police officers because it actually doesn't matter if there are zero racist police officers; in its current form and operation, the police force and its policies would still be racist.
There's an interesting phenomenon in statistics called Simpson's paradox. It occurs when a trend appears in several different data sets that then disappears or reverses when the sets are combined. So for example, you might be testing two different treatments for kidney stones; treatment A seems to be more effective than treatment B against small kidney stones, and treatment A also seems to be more effective than treatment B against large kidney stones, and yet as soon as you combine your data set, it's clear that treatment B is the better overall treatment.
Another example I just made up, goalkeeper A has a better penalty save percentage than goalkeeper B against left-footed penalty takers, and right-footed penalty takers, and yet when the dominant foot of the penalty taker is ignored, goalkeeper B has a better overall save percentage.
It's reasonable to expect there are police officers that are not racist who work with other officers that are also not racist, and those officers might understandably be confused when someone calls their organisation racist. The interesting thing is, you don't need there to be any racist police officers for systemic racism to exist within the police force. Much like the Simpson's paradox, we might get one trend when we look at the individuals but an opposing trend when we look at the collective. We very much like to see everyone as an individual, treat everyone on their own merits. We fail to see how those individuals might interact and miss the change in trend.
Black households are the most likely group to have an annual household income of less than £20,800, at 35%. Just 19% of black households have an annual income of more than £52,000 against the UK average of 27%. Lower incomes mean the black population need to congregate where there are jobs and available housing, which means cities, which means over 98% of the black community in the UK live in urban centres. A dense population suffering from high income inequality has, to my knowledge, never not led to higher incidence of crime. So those areas are policed more. And the people in those areas are associated with the crimes being committed. BAME population in the UK is just under 14%, yet they make up 26% of the prison population and over 50% of the youth offender population.
None of this requires a cabal of secretly racist cops. It doesn't require any racist cops at all. It's all just a natural consequence of rampaging income disparity. So it doesn't matter if you're not racist - if you're not racist, then you are not the problem. It doesn't matter if most police officers are not racist because the problem isn't racist police officers. Remove all racist police officers and BAME people will still make up a disproportionate share of the prison population because they will still be involved in more crime because they will still be clustered in urban centres because they will still be in the lowest income brackets because minorities always fall to the bottom. Until the issue of income inequality is fixed, this will always be a problem in our modern society and it's going to get worse.