The Behavior of UK Police officers.

[Mojo]

Do you expect Muslims not to upend gay rights if they get enough political power?

Do you expect Christians not to?

 

[Her Dark Star]

You people just have this idea that all people are white, or can act white once they step into white countries.

What does that actually mean? It doesn't make any sense to me, and I think may be at the heart of why we've been at cross purposes.
What would acting white mean? I can't think of any value of behaviour that would be universally seen as "White", it covers such a wide range of individuals, classes, locations and cultures and contrary ideologies.

What is a white country? None of us were white originally, is it a certain kind of history? a percentage of the population, does a country have to act white, following a certain one of the behaviors you seem to be thinking of in your above post?

It may be too much of a derail from the original topic, however given that the root of your concerns doesn't appear to be caused by the actual behaviour of UK Police Officers, it would seem relevant.

 

[Baylor]

Just to confirm, you are saying non whites need force and violence to successfully police them? Is that correct?

Not all, but most. Don't see you criticizing the Democratic Republic of Congo.

There is no loss of control in Scotland. Northern Ireland still has areas where the police struggle due to the remaining gangs and paramilitary activity from the Troubles. England has pockets where there are issues, but most of the country is fine, as is Wales.

England also has the most diversity.

Some Americans think that the softer approach used in Scotland is a way to reduce the deaths;

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/...and-get-lessons-on-avoiding-deadly-force.html

Could be in some situations. Cops in the US can be jumpy but they have good reasons for it.

Calming people down, patience, containment, respect, non lethal tactics, negotiation, humour and not having to be armed works here.

Key word there is "here." There is no universal way to police because there is no universal community.

I personally think it will never work in the USA as the USA has lost control of its guns, its policing is based on force and it has horrendous racial issues. The UK does not have those issues.

I'm not sure what you mean by "USA lost control of its guns."

The way for UK to deal with race issues is to bury its head in the sand. As a consequence for wanting to come across as virtuous, thousands and thousands of girls were raped, many tortured and murdered.

 

[Baylor]

It may be too much of a derail from the original topic, however given that the root of your concerns doesn't appear to be caused by the actual behaviour of UK Police Officers, it would seem relevant.

I've stated my argument several times. A human rightsy approach to policing can work in lily whites countries. As a country gets more "diverse" like the UK, stricter measures become necessary. UK police have failed its citizenry by running with their tail between their legs instead of facing criminals and confrontations head on.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I've stated my argument several times.

Yes, what you have failed to do is to make a coherent case to support it, and in fact have made a reasonable case that the opposite is true - that the military style policing tactics you seem to be in favour of have simply led to more and more violence for all concerned.

Since you argue Americans can't be controlled by UK style policing would you support a move to ban Americans from travelling to the UK until a solution can be found?

 

[Mojo]

I've stated my argument several times. A human rightsy approach to policing can work in lily whites countries. As a country gets more "diverse" like the UK, stricter measures become necessary. UK police have failed its citizenry by running with their tail between their legs instead of facing criminals and confrontations head on.

Begging the question.

 

[Baylor]

I've stated my argument several times. A human rightsy approach to policing can work in lily whites countries. As a country gets more "diverse" like the UK, stricter measures become necessary. UK police have failed its citizenry by running with their tail between their legs instead of facing criminals and confrontations head on.

There are many ways to support this

In 2012, Germany was ranked second in quality of life. As Germany got more diverse, its quality of life dropped and as of midway 2018 ranks at number 7. In 2012, Germany was ranked 4 in safety index, it is now ranked 24.

In 2012, Sweden was ranked 17 on the safety index, as they got much more diverse in the 6 years, they are now ranked 57.

The most "diverse" countries are ranked the worst in terms of safety. Multiracial Brazil--with its 56,101 reported murders-- is ranked 65 out of 66. Black dominated, biracial, and multiethnic South Africa is ranked 66 out of 66 on the safety index.

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2018-mid

 

[Nessie]

Not all, but most. Don't see you criticizing the Democratic Republic of Congo.

OK

England also has the most diversity.

No, it has the largest immigrant populations. Then you ignore the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland and to an extent, parts of Scotland. Something not present in the USA in the same way.

Could be in some situations. Cops in the US can be jumpy but they have good reasons for it.

In most of the police shootings I have seen, the cops were jumpy for no good reason at all.

Key word there is "here." There is no universal way to police because there is no universal community.

Which is why your criticism of the police in the UK is off the mark. We have a different way of doing things, a more soft approach by mostly unarmed police. Unarmed police faced with armed people and mobs have, as part of their tactics, a policy of containment and monitoring, which you confuse with "running away".

I'm not sure what you mean by "USA lost control of its guns."

The USA has tons of guns, no idea who has what and far more shooting deaths, of all kinds than anywhere else. Criminals and others unsuitable to have a gun find it easy to get one on the USA.

The way for UK to deal with race issues is to bury its head in the sand. As a consequence for wanting to come across as virtuous, thousands and thousands of girls were raped, many tortured and murdered.

There was a problem with some police forces not properly investigating claims made by young white girls against older Asian men. Then problem is now being addressed and there have been numerous enquiries, trials and convictions. The problem is now being solved.

The USA's problem is that its race and gun issues are so out of control that they will never be solved.

 

[Nessie]

I've stated my argument several times. A human rightsy approach to policing can work in lily whites countries. As a country gets more "diverse" like the UK, stricter measures become necessary. UK police have failed its citizenry by running with their tail between their legs instead of facing criminals and confrontations head on.

You have admitted that your claims only apply to small parts of England and not the UK, so you should reduce the hyperbole.

I have pointed out that past failings regarding the investigation of certain crimes by Asians have been admitted, addressed and the issue is being solved.

I have pointed out to you that the way the UK police are equipped when dealing public order/riot situations and the tradition of policing by consent means different, softer tactics have to be used.

To develop that point further, when public order has seriously broken down, the UK has used the army with live rounds and the police with rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannon and tougher methods to quell disturbances. That happened for years in Northern Ireland. All whites. No blacks, no Asians, just whites. It is only in Northern Ireland that such a break down in order has taken place and that problem has now been largely solved.

The UK is far more diverse and different from the USA than you know about. The UK has also been able to solve its issues.

All you are doing is showing that you are racist, ignorant and that you have failed to notice the British are able to solve their issues, the Americans cannot.

 

[Nessie]

There are many ways to support this

In 2012, Germany was ranked second in quality of life. As Germany got more diverse, its quality of life dropped and as of midway 2018 ranks at number 7. In 2012, Germany was ranked 4 in safety index, it is now ranked 24.

In 2012, Sweden was ranked 17 on the safety index, as they got much more diverse in the 6 years, they are now ranked 57.

The most "diverse" countries are ranked the worst in terms of safety. Multiracial Brazil--with its 56,101 reported murders-- is ranked 65 out of 66. Black dominated, biracial, and multiethnic South Africa is ranked 66 out of 66 on the safety index.

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2018-mid

Now prove ethnic mix is the cause.

 

[Darat]

Way to duck the question. Going from 96% white to 91% white doesn't really fit my definition of "more diverse." But it was nearly all white people who enacted the legislation. Back to the question: Do you expect Muslims not to upend gay rights if they get enough political power?

As I said it was pretty much all white protestant men that made consensual sex between males illegal, that made abortion illegal and so on. And I can see if I look to the USA that it is still mainly white, protestant and catholic males that want to make abortion illegal, remove "gay rights" and so on.

I expect that the UK will remain a representative democracy so any changes to legislation etc. will happen as they always do and as ever I suspect I will not always agree with what is passed or not passed by the houses.

 

[Darat]

I've stated my argument several times. A human rightsy approach to policing can work in lily whites countries. As a country gets more "diverse" like the UK, stricter measures become necessary. UK police have failed its citizenry by running with their tail between their legs instead of facing criminals and confrontations head on.

Way to duck the question.

 

[Information Analyst]

Or, it is because it suits police management to record crime so it appears to be rising, along with press scare stories, as a means to put pressure on the government to stop cutting police numbers in England & Wales.

Probably a bit of both.

 

[Information Analyst]

A cynical retired American cop could make the observation that the real benefit is that it's less expensive for the agency to pay the medical bills for an injured officer and less potential risk of adverse action against LE administrators in minimizing the use of force by their officers.

An administrator may be fired if one of their officers uses force, but it would not be likely that they'd face adverse consequences if the officer was seriously injured or killed otj.

An observation by participants in the US not often discussed in public is that having the insurance carrier pay a death benefit to a widow is less expensive than a possible use of force lawsuit award, even ones not involving lethal force use.

Apart from medical bills not being applicable in the UK, the relatively low number of deaths amongst officers here - just eight in the last decade - goes against these assumptions.

 

[Information Analyst]

Thank you for helping to prove my point. British style police force works in lily white countries but not "multicultural" ones.

Sarcasm detection fail.

 

[baron]

Strangely as the UK became even more diverse we gained such things as "gay rights" - when I was born it was still illegal for a male homosexual to have sex with another man. Those laws went back to when we were ruled by predominantly white men, with sometimes a smattering of black people e.g. Irish in there.

You see this disingenuous argument all the time and people swallow it like it has merit. It's put across as just another fact that proves these dastardly 'white people' are no more progressive or tolerant than any other ethnicity, indeed less so, when the converse is clearly true. Prior to 1967 gay activities were illegal in the UK, in common with the default position of 98% of the world's population, and could attract a maximum jail sentence of two years. You have to go back at least a hundred years prior to that to when the fantastically named Buggery Act of 1533 was still in force to witness corporal or capital punishment.

Now the UK has arguably the strongest gay rights laws in the world, with tolerance levels to match, but whilst the oppression of homosexuals can be laid at the whites' door, this massive improvement cannot. It isn't due to the white people, it's due to... 'diversity'. In some way that will forever remain unexplored, importing two million Muslims - zero percent of whom believe homosexuality is moral - has brought about the world-leading status of gay rights we have today. Clearly our diverse immigrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria have dragged us intolerant white people kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

In Yemen, the punishment for a married man engaging in homosexual acts is death by stoning. In Bangladesh things are looking up, it's only life imprisonment. There are ten countries that currently impose the death penalty for homosexuality; all are Muslim, all are ruled by sharia. An increasing number of countries have legalised homosexuality but in name only. They have no anti-gay legislation and gays are just as much at risk, perhaps more so, than in countries where it is illegal.

So if we have to talk about skin colour, perhaps a better way of putting it would be, "I applaud the efforts of those British white people who made homosexuality legal over half a century ago and since then have implemented the gold standard in rights for gay and transgender people." There, it wasn't so hard.

 

[Information Analyst]

Back to the question: Do you expect Muslims not to upend gay rights if they get enough political power?

How do you think they're going to get that in the first place? None of the Muslims in mainstream politics now have shown the slightest indications that they would do that, anyway.

 

[MikeG]

........ There's a reason why UK police are losing control of the streets........

In the sense you mean it, they're not. Not in the slightest. In the sense of drug dealing and low level gang violence, then there are pockets of problems, and some strain on resources in an era of budget cutting. The basic assumptions of your argument are just nonsense.

Tell you what, how about this for an idea. You name a street in Britain, and we'll see if we can find a member who lives near by and get him or her to walk down that street and report back on what they find. Is that a fair enough response to your idea that there are no-go areas and a loss of police control?

 

[MikeG]

......Muslims - zero percent of whom believe homosexuality is moral -........

You've obviously never been to Morocco.

 

[baron]

You've obviously never been to Morocco.

That's not obvious from what I said. I was clearly talking about UK Muslims.