Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

BLM


miamiwhite

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Let’s not forget, according to the ONS the Police only carried out 370k stop and searches last year in the U.K, of which 70K were on someone who would identify as Black ethnicity 

The 2011 census has the U.K. black population at 2m, probably higher now. 

Based on those figures 3.5 Black people in every 100 will have been stopped and searched last year with 96.5 not getting bothered once. That’s if you flat phase it as well. Once you have allowed for Danny Rose getting hammered with stop and searches and the many others who also complain of being stopped and searched every week (think someone on this thread claimed three times a day for some known knife carrying criminals), then it’s highly likely that 99% of Black people don’t get bothered by the Police at all 

But let’s ignore those figures and instead beat ourselves up for being institutionally racist 

 

So by your numbers 1 in 5 approx stop and searches are on black people. 
based on a population of 60m they make up 1 in 30 of the population. 
 

So black folk are 6 times more likely to be stopped. As Casino posted earlier I believe most coppers are probably decent folk and are probably trying their best to only stop folk they think are/look dodgy. I have no idea on crime stats so maybe these numbers reflect propensity to commit crime. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Just had a quick look and it suggest that they are included...

'A stop and search is when a police officer stops you or your vehicle and searches you'

https://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/information-and-services/About-us/Stop-and-search/Stop-and-Search-frequently-asked-questions

 

But does that cover being stopped and being asked to produce ID rather than searched ? Stop and search is quite specific and was controversial when introduced as something do with civil liberties in terms of giving police power to search with no warrant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, the ONS data would indicate that 90% of all stop and searches are carried out on males, only 10% are on females, given the population is circa 50:50 that would indicate that a male is 10x more likely to be stopped and searched rather than a female. Does this then indicate that the Police service is institutionally sexist and a clear sign of discrimination against men? If a board of directors was 90% male then it would be called out by the gender equality mob. Or alternatively is this just driven by the fact that a man is much more likely to commit a crime than a female? 

Also worth considering the age profile of stop and searches, 80% of them are carried out on people under 35 years old, however this age group only make up a third of the population. So you are 8x more likely to get stopped and searched if you are younger than 35, again is this Institutional age discrimination from the Police or alternatively is this just where the crime is? 

The age one is interesting, although the overall UK population is predominantly older (66% above 35 years old), its the opposite for most of the BAME group who are mainly recent migrants into the country so dont have generations of oldies who are retired. 66% of all Black people in this country are under 35, that's only 33% for white people. So when you look at stop and search statistics, if you accept that 80% of them will happen on under 35's then immediately you should expect twice as many Black people to get stop and searched per 100,000 than white.  

Geography also plays a part, half of all stop and searches take place in London, yet that only accounts for 20% of the overall UK population, but over 60% of the UK black community Live in London. A third of all UK knife crime takes place in the capitol so its understandable that the MET Police over index with Stop and Search

Plenty of nuance in the numbers, to get some sort of parity you would need to see the age demographics level out Black vs White and also the Geographical location of that group. If they were evenly spread across the UK regions rather than just in 2 or 3 city centers it would help give a much more level playing field for stop and search's 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Just had a quick look and it suggest that they are included...

'A stop and search is when a police officer stops you or your vehicle and searches you'

https://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/information-and-services/About-us/Stop-and-search/Stop-and-Search-frequently-asked-questions

 

The METs own site describes a vehicle stop as 'This is not a stop and search'.

I've been stopped once in the last 30 years but then I dont drive a particularly smart or racy type car.  I'm not black either.

I've no reason to think Danny Rose is lying and it's a similar story from lots of black men his age.  I imagine it gets very bloody annoying if you're getting stopped possibly because the Police Officer is of a mind set 'Young black male in nice vehicle.  Obviously stolen or up to no good'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

The METs own site describes a vehicle stop as 'This is not a stop and search'.

I've been stopped once in the last 30 years but then I dont drive a particularly smart or racy type car.  I'm not black either.

I've no reason to think Danny Rose is lying and it's a similar story from lots of black men his age.  I imagine it gets very bloody annoying if you're getting stopped possibly because the Police Officer is of a mind set 'Young black male in nice vehicle.  Obviously stolen or up to no good'

We used to get pulled every week when we were 18-21, but then again my mate had a souped up car and 5 of us would sit in it smoking weed so its not like the Police were barking up the wrong Tree 

I don't know what Car Danny Rose drives, I can only imagine its very sporty and expensive and would stick out in Doncaster (think that's where he said?) like a sore thumb. I guess we will never know but if you stuck a 25 year old white lad in it and he drove around Doncaster then I doubt he would get waived through by the Police. Any kid that age driving a car like that will be a red flag for South Yorkshire Police. If you stuck a young girl in it then statistically speaking she would be a lot less likely to get pulled, but then again I still think the Police would have suspicions

I understand that  black Person is more likely to get stopped and searched than a white person. A male is more likely to get pulled than a female. A young person more likely than an older person. 

Does this mean that the Police are institutionally Racist, Sexists and ageist OR are they just doing their job and going where the crime tends to be? In the UK a black person is more likely to commit a crime than a white person, a man is more likely to commit a crime than a women, a young person is more likely to commit a crime than an older person   

Edited by birch-chorley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article here from the BBC a year ago regarding the victims of knife crime...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48186035

Data index is broadly aligned to the stop and search data. Victims predominantly male, predominantly young and geographically SKU'd to London, Birmingham and Manchester. Clear over index with the ethnicity of the victims (and likely perpetrators) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 hours ago, bolton va va said:

The trick is to shout "racism " ,even when there is no evidence of racism , so often that it then can be claimed that there is "systemic racism ".

Here's an actual racist attack from last month in America though i must have missed the BBC's coverage of it ........

 

What a brave cunt he is. Twice the size of his victim and blind sides him. Vermin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 hours ago, Morizio said:

If the incident were here and @bolton va vareported a racist incident it would be. However to say it’s a racially aggravated assault, just from the video is wrong as the intent of the suspect isn’t known, this area is covered by gathering other evidence and an interview.
 

This of course is just looking at the video and not considering any other evidence which may or may not be available. 

aye

and if after all that, it's proved to be a racist attack, would you expect to see it make headline news on the BBC over here?

me neither

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

aye

and if after all that, it's proved to be a racist attack, would you expect to see it make headline news on the BBC over here?

me neither

No,  but  if it was film of a white racist making an unprovoked attack on a black kid, the BBC would be all over it.....& they wouldn't be waiting to see if it was "proved" to be a racist attack.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
4 minutes ago, bolton va va said:

No,  but  if it was film of a white racist making an unprovoked attack on a black kid, the BBC would be all over it.....& they wouldn't be waiting to see if it was "proved" to be a racist attack.    

When it comes to crime, the BBC can only report what the police or witnesses say. They don't make stuff up to wind up people like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cheese said:

When it comes to crime, the BBC can only report what the police or witnesses say. They don't make stuff up to wind up people like you.

Give over, as you know very well, the BBC can choose which stories to cover ( or not ), the prominence they are given, & above all, whether to give them a sympathetic ( or critical ) slant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, bolton va va said:

Give over, as you know very well, the BBC can choose which stories to cover ( or not ), the prominence they are given, & above all, whether to give them a sympathetic ( or critical ) slant.

Every man and his dog criticises the BBC for bias in one direction or another. Suggests to me they get the balance about right.

Can you give an example of a well-publicised racist attack on a white person that the BBC chose not to cover?

Edited by Cheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Every man and his dog criticises the BBC for bias in one direction or another. Suggests to me they get the balance about right.

Can you give an example of a well-publicised racist attack on a white person that the BBC chose not to cover?

I can ....the murder of Kriss Donald. Check it out, they themselves admitted they underplayed the coverage of Scotland's first ever racially motivated murder. 18 days before they even reported on the trial.

Next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

I can ....the murder of Kriss Donald. Check it out, they themselves admitted they underplayed the coverage of Scotland's first ever racially motivated murder. 18 days before they even reported on the trial.

Next.

 They did cover it though, and by admitting they may have not given it enough coverage it therefore shows they have......??

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, peelyfeet said:

 They did cover it though, and by admitting they may have not given it enough coverage it therefore shows they have......??

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald

Yes, they did cover it but admitted they underplayed it. That trial should have been national headlines in Scotland with it being the first racially motivated murder there.

All the facts re underplaying the murder trail are even on that link, which highlights the shocking nature of them choosing not to cover it from the start.

It was a well publicised murder and the BBC were spineless as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
37 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

I can ....the murder of Kriss Donald. Check it out, they themselves admitted they underplayed the coverage of Scotland's first ever racially motivated murder. 18 days before they even reported on the trial.

Next.

A half-reasonable example (even though it WAS covered nationally) as the BBC admitted to a "mistake". But the story did get full coverage on BBC Scotland. That would suggest too much regional focus, rather than the BBC avoiding the story altogether.

I'll repeat the question: Can you give an example of a well-publicised racist attack on a white person that the BBC chose not to cover?

Edited by Cheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

A half-reasonable example (even though it WAS covered nationally) as the BBC admitted to a "mistake". But the story did get full coverage on BBC Scotland. That would suggest too much regional focus, rather than the BBC avoiding the story altogether.

I'll repeat the question: Can you give an example of a well-publicised racist attack on a white person that the BBC chose not to cover?

They chose not to cover it for 18 days ....yes or no ? Would you say that is disgusting in a country's first ever racially motivated murder ? Christ sake, they even then only gave it 2nd billing after giving the main news slot to a community centre being opened.

Please find me coverage from the BBC for the murders of Richard Everitt, Ross Parker and Gavin Hopley.

You'll find coverage of the trials, but will struggle to find reports when they were murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

They chose not to cover it for 18 days ....yes or no ? Would you say that is disgusting in a country's first ever racially motivated murder ? Christ sake, they even then only gave it 2nd billing after giving the main news slot to a community centre being opened.

Please find me coverage from the BBC for the murders of Richard Everitt, Ross Parker and Gavin Hopley.

You'll find coverage of the trials, but will struggle to find reports when they were 

haha. 2 can play that game. Did they cover it yes or no. Was the 18 day delay for the 2nd trial only in the BBc's main bulletins yes or no? 

Please point me to a better media source for unbiased reporting in the UK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
22 minutes ago, Cheese said:

A half-reasonable example (even though it WAS covered nationally) as the BBC admitted to a "mistake". But the story did get full coverage on BBC Scotland. That would suggest too much regional focus, rather than the BBC avoiding the story altogether.

I'll repeat the question: Can you give an example of a well-publicised racist attack on a white person that the BBC chose not to cover?

Va Va already posted a video of one that has 28k views

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
10 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

They chose not to cover it for 18 days ....yes or no ? Would you say that is disgusting in a country's first ever racially motivated murder ? Christ sake, they even then only gave it 2nd billing after giving the main news slot to a community centre being opened.

Please find me coverage from the BBC for the murders of Richard Everitt, Ross Parker and Gavin Hopley.

You'll find coverage of the trials, but will struggle to find reports when they were murdered.

I found a report about his murder 3 days after the event

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3522926.stm
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

haha. 2 can play that game. Did they cover it yes or no. Was the 18 day delay for the 2nd trial only in the BBc's main bulletins yes or no? 

Please point me to a better media source for unbiased reporting in the UK

Read the article, they didn't cover it for 18 days. Disgusting,  yes or no ?

Lots of newspapers covered it, but the BBC didn't for 18 days, hence their bollocking. Please find me their coverage on the other horrific racist murders I mentioned.....not court trials, but coverage of the actual attacks......I'll wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ZicoKelly said:

I found a report about his murder 3 days after the event

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3522926.stm
 

 

We're not on about thanks, I have coverage from the day after, we are discussing the trial not being covered for 18 days.......do you find that shocking considering the serious nature of it ? A straight yes or no please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

We're not on about thanks, I have coverage from the day after, we are discussing the trial not being covered for 18 days.......do you find that shocking considering the serious nature of it ? A straight yes or no please.

but I have an article from the day the trial started:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5400138.stm
and another from 3 days in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5409734.stm
so not sure where 18 days comes from?  if there's a link that shows that to be the case I'd say "yes", but as it is, it's difficult to give a straight answer

anyway, it's clear from the wiki link that the article was undercovered, though it clearly states:

Although admitting that the BBC had "got it wrong", the organisation's Head of Newsgathering, Fran Unsworth, largely rejected the suggestion that Donald's race played a part in the lack of reportage, instead claiming it was mostly a product of "Scottish blindness".

anyway, it's a murder, so one way or another it will get covered

going back to Va Va's video, do you think that if a video showed a white lad getting out of a car and blind siding a black lad in exactly the same way as happened in that video - do you think it would make headline news over here, or indeed anywhere as a racist attack?

I don't, and it's nowt to do with race

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the first trial , the Wikipedia article relates to the 2nd trial.

Re the video Va Va put out, I personally don't think it would make headlines here if roles were reversed though stranger things have happened.

Try and find anything on the BBC when Richard Everitt, Gavin Hopley and Ross Parker were actually murdered.

I can't to be honest but it must be somewhere, there's coverage of trials on a couple of them but ive struggled to find the BBC reporting the murders themselves and the BBC again admit they underplayed the Ross Parker murder re that particular trial.

I speak to Danny Everitt quite a bit, he's Richard's brother, shocking stuff what went on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
11 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

That's the first trial , the Wikipedia article relates to the 2nd trial.

it's not, that link is from the 2nd trial on 2nd October 2006 - the wiki link mentions 18 days, but that link is def the first day of the 2nd trial - so not sure what's going on there

here's a link from the first trial in 2004 - dated Nov 5th - but dunno what day the trial started

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3986241.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.