The behaviour of UK police officers.

[catsmate]

I googled, "what proportion of black people being murdered is gang related, compared to white people who are murdered?".

The AI response was, "Comprehensive official statistics tracking the exact proportion of homicides that are "gang-related" broken down explicitly by the race of the victim are limited, but national data analyses (such as past supplemental homicide reports) indicate that roughly 11% of Black homicide victims and about 4% of white homicide victims die in incidents identified as gang-related".

Why not try finding a reliable source for such data?
If we're to accept this data;
40% of UK homicide victims are black
11% of those killings are 'gang related'
73% of those killings were unsolved
Which suggests 'gaga violence' is not in fact the issue.

 

[Matthew Best]

Which suggests 'gaga violence' is not in fact the issue.

If it's not Gaga violence, is it perhaps Madonna?

 

[Nessie]

Well don't. No-one here needs to have the law copsplained to them.

Address the actual scenario, as it played out, without you additions and/or alterations.

I did and then used scenarios, as did others.

 

[Nessie]

Why don't you? Then we can all see how it goes from, "I'm not saying you've committed a crime.", to the bit where she tries to put him on the wrong side of the law when he is simply waiting for a pizza.

"I have been advised there is someone in a hooded jacket exactly in this precise location where you are stood refusing your details interfering with vehicles along this road". That gives the officer reasonable suspicion to detain. No wonder you missed that out.

 

[ohms]

I agree that could weight it (if of course black british people are much more likely to be gangs than white british people) against the crimes being solved.

Do we have evidence that non-white British folk are more likely to be in criminal gangs?

While you have to consider the source, the Met police publish data on the most violent and harmful offenders on their Violence Harm Assessment tool

https://www.met.police.uk/police-forces/metropolitan-police/areas/about-us/about-the-met/violence-harm-assessment

The VHA replaced the gangs violence matrix a few years ago and the latest figures for July show 16.73% self-reporting as white, 14.89% as not stated and the rest being other ethnic groups.

 

[Darat]

Interesting - thanks. I see that the 18-24 range is by far the biggest single group of folk on the VHA at around 40%. We need a radical rethink in how we deal with young men and their lack of self-control as that age group is also the highest for other issues - for example road traffic accidents.

 

[catsmate]

If it's not Gaga violence, is it perhaps Madonna?

Aaargh. That was a weird auto-correct, I got one but not the other.

 

[bluesjnr]

"I have been advised there is someone in a hooded jacket exactly in this precise location where you are stood refusing your details interfering with vehicles along this road". That gives the officer reasonable suspicion to detain. No wonder you missed that out.

Bear in mind people are at liberty to watch the video and make their own mind up, just as you did.

According to the officer he was guilty of 'coming round the corner with your hood up and your phone in your hand'.

She, as you have said, seems to be investigating a case of someone messing with cars. The foregoing makes him suspicious.... but.

She's not really suspicious is she? She's just being a bully. Why do I say that?

1) She never searched him, which she said she was going to do, and should have done when the back up arrives. As you know well, a search can be conducted and a record provided without a name.
2) Him, eventually giving his details under duress, somehow meant that he was no longer under suspicion. By magic no further checks were required.
3) At one point she threatened to deprived him of his pizza and by doing so acknowledged his claim that he was waiting for one.

How is that? Just because he lives there doesn't mean he couldn't have been 'interfering' with cars. Why didn't she follow through with her threat to search? Why didn't she confirm if he was going equipped? She was looking for a perp and let him walk off.

She did this because she lied about her suspicions and had her ego bruised by him pushing back.

Meanwhile, the real suspect slipped quietly away, unhindered by any interaction with those whose very job it is to apprehend them.

 

[Nessie]

Bear in mind people are at liberty to watch the video and make their own mind up, just as you did.

According to the officer he was guilty of 'coming round the corner with your hood up and your phone in your hand'.

She, as you have said, seems to be investigating a case of someone messing with cars. The foregoing makes him suspicious.... but.

She's not really suspicious is she? She's just being a bully. Why do I say that?

1) She never searched him, which she said she was going to do, and should have done when the back up arrives. As you know well, a search can be conducted and a record provided without a name.
2) Him, eventually giving his details under duress, somehow meant that he was no longer under suspicion. By magic no further checks were required.
3) At one point she threatened to deprived him of his pizza and by doing so acknowledged his claim that he was waiting for one.

How is that? Just because he lives there doesn't mean he couldn't have been 'interfering' with cars. Why didn't she follow through with her threat to search? Why didn't she confirm if he was going equipped? She was looking for a perp and let him walk off.

She did this because she lied about her suspicions and had her ego bruised by him pushing back.

Meanwhile, the real suspect slipped quietly away, unhindered by any interaction with those whose very job it is to apprehend them.

You would make a useless police officer. You get a call to someone acting suspiciously, with concern about vehicle crime and you find someone who fits the basic description, but you would do nothing and let them walk away, without using your powers to detain, identify and release pending further enquiry. You like to make biased, assertions without evidence, without getting how ironic that is.

 

[bluesjnr]

You would make a useless police officer. You get a call to someone acting suspiciously, with concern about vehicle crime and you find someone who fits the basic description, but you would do nothing and let them walk away, without using your powers to detain, identify and release pending further enquiry. You like to make biased, assertions without evidence, without getting how ironic that is.

So to be clear, I am entirely biased. In the incident under discussion the actual officer didn't search the suspect then got his name and address, despite confirming that he wouldn't necessarily come up as registered at said address. Having done so let him walk.

You don't mention of this despite me pointing it out.

Then you judge me as, potentially, a useless police officer.

I don't know about that. Granted I've not got a massively fragile ego but I'm surely petty enough to rise to the top?

One last thing, I find interesting about our exchanges, and not for the first time. You immediately ignored issues with her approach and subsequent release from detention and immediately went to making me the useless one. It's a civilian version of putting someone on the wrong side of the law at every opportunity.

 

[theprestige]

Huh. I'm so used to seeing US police bodycam footage where the cops get everyone's ID and then immediately run them for suspended licenses, open warrants, etc. that it kind of shocked me to learn of a cop that didn't run the name they just got. In the US, the harder you work to not give over your ID, the more convinced the cop is that you have an open warrant, and the more eager he's going to be about getting your name.

Maybe it's different in the UK, but I feel like any cop that doesn't run a name, after the citizen resisted giving it, is clearly just harassing people, not doing police work.

 

[Nessie]

So to be clear, I am entirely biased. In the incident under discussion the actual officer didn't search the suspect then got his name and address, despite confirming that he wouldn't necessarily come up as registered at said address. Having done so let him walk.

You don't mention of this despite me pointing it out.

Then you judge me as, potentially, a useless police officer.

I don't know about that. Granted I've not got a massively fragile ego but I'm surely petty enough to rise to the top?

One last thing, I find interesting about our exchanges, and not for the first time. You immediately ignored issues with her approach and subsequent release from detention and immediately went to making me the useless one. It's a civilian version of putting someone on the wrong side of the law at every opportunity.

At 5.42 in the video he states my name is and then he turns off the video and then turns it back on again, so he does not broadcast his details on Youtube. We do not know what checks were done.

There are no issues with her approach, beyond your desperate attempts to find fault. She is polite, she tells him what the issue is, she is correct about getting details and she clearly and not unreasonably changes her mind about conducting a search.

 

[Nessie]

Huh. I'm so used to seeing US police bodycam footage where the cops get everyone's ID and then immediately run them for suspended licenses, open warrants, etc. that it kind of shocked me to learn of a cop that didn't run the name they just got. In the US, the harder you work to not give over your ID, the more convinced the cop is that you have an open warrant, and the more eager he's going to be about getting your name.

Maybe it's different in the UK, but I feel like any cop that doesn't run a name, after the citizen resisted giving it, is clearly just harassing people, not doing police work.

He cuts out the part of the video where he gives his details and any checks made.

 

[The Common Potato]

"I have been advised there is someone in a hooded jacket exactly in this precise location where you are stood refusing your details interfering with vehicles along this road".

And I suggested she ought to have started with that approach.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

No, she wasn't. She was arrested for silently praying in an exclusion zone outside an abortion clinic.

The 'centrists' in the UK free speech thread had trouble understanding this concept as well.

Centrists have trouble understanding any concept which doesn't glorify either fascism or nazism.

 

[bluesjnr]

At 5.42 in the video he states my name is and then he turns off the video and then turns it back on again, so he does not broadcast his details on Youtube. We do not know what checks were done.

You are replying to the wrong person here. I'm perfectly well aware of this

There are no issues with her approach, beyond your desperate attempts to find fault.

I have pointed out the issues, specifically and explained why they are issues. I'll give you some more.

She is polite,

She is, initially. Apart from where she attempts to set him up for getting too close to her. Her mask continues to slip as he pushes back and her ego cracks. At one point she needlessly accuses him of being a bad neighbour who doesn't care about his neighbourhood. What is she on?

she tells him what the issue is,

We don't know what happened at the start of the video, it wasn't filmed.

I know you have, in the past, been very keen to point out that we shouldn't rely on that which we haven't evidenced. Something happened between her and him that gave him cause to start filming. When he switches the camera on she is saying.

"[inaudible] give your details so I can let you go"

As he starts to explain his position she's radioing for another unit. Then she says, "I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, mate". She says this in a conciliatory tone.

We've been through the rest but, fundamentally, she makes an unconfirmed statement about people interfering with cars, which he refutes.

She later tells him the issue was that he came, "around the corner with his hood up and your phone in your hand and you turned away".

I don't find that she has a reasonable enough suspicion to go to the extent she has up to that point. She can't work of off a hunch or just because he looks suspicious.

We'll never agree because of your previous career and indoctrination that all members of the public are not be trusted and that you should suspect everyone. Another reason we won't agree is because of my inherent bias. I'm in this thread to flag up poor police behaviour and I can find it in spades... even when I park my bias.

If I, the potentially useless officer you tagged me as earlier, had been in her place, I would have engaged the lad and chatted about what had been going on. Had he seen anything? Did he live around here? Is everything OK, you're out and about a bit late? Fishing? Yes, but less combative.

In this particular instance it would have had exactly the same result, only, one less member of the public would be able to post online and show yet another officer earning the hate.

she is correct about getting details and she clearly and not unreasonably changes her mind about conducting a search.

There's that word again or another version of it.

Here's what I find ironic about you using it in defence. I think in todays force you'd be hard pushed to find a "reasonable" officer, capable of having a "reasonable" interaction with a member of the public. Moreso, when and if, that member of the public pushes back, however gently. Reason goes out the window and the tyrant with a fragile ego emerges.

The tyrant starts to emerge when she orders this guy not to walk away [complies], then tells him to "stay where you are" [complies], then, taking around 6 or 7 steps, walks up to him and tells him "don't come any closer to me". The tyrant attempts to tie him in when she asserts, "I have no reason to suspect that you are not involved".

She has no reason she says. Her brain cannot comprehend or come up with any reason, at all, that he might not be involved. Despite this unequivocal, in her mind, proof she doesn't arrest him

I don't know for sure if she informs him that she's activated her BWC. My bias and analysis of this video and other similar situations leads me to conclude she hasn't, she should. Same with giving him the courtesy of her name, station, and warrant/collar number, which she should have done as she was initiating a stop and search. None of the officers present offer this, why? This was hardly a high stress quickly moving environment.

 

[bluesjnr]

Centrists have trouble understanding any concept which doesn't glorify either fascism or nazism.

I think you are in the wrong thread, we're talking about the behaviour of the police. They should police everybody, of any political colour, equally, if they are out and about legally and doing nothing wrong but having political ideals.

If they are at large, committing criminal acts, then the police should act according to the threat without favour, irrespective of political ideology.

All you've come in here to do as far as I can see is call people names. You add nothing at all to the thread subject.

 

[smartcooky]

Centrists have trouble understanding any concept which doesn't glorify either fascism or nazism.

Nazis and fascists murder people who are Jewish, they murder people who are gypsies, they murder homosexuals, they murder people with mental illnesses, they murder people who are physically disabled.

I know of no 'centrist" who glorifies the murder of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the physically disabled, or anyone else for that matter.

You're talking horse ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Zia is going to sort it all out

Zia Yusuf
@ZiaYusufUK
Most crime in Britain goes unpunished.

Which is why you feel so unsafe.

Just 10% of robberies result in suspects being charged or summoned.

For assaults causing injury, it's 8%.

And for rapes, it's a shocking 3%

Overall, it's only 7% of victim-based offences.

These offences include any crime against another individual, group, or business - with 4.4 million recorded last year, including rapes, robberies, and murders.

But these numbers are not new.

Criminals have been getting away with murder - literally - for decades.

And they know it.

No wonder we're losing control of our streets, when even the most basic laws are not enforced.

The Tories and Labour got us into this mess.

Reform will get us out.

A much bigger prison estate, including rented in countries like El Salvador.

A police force judged not on DEI metrics but on detecting crime and arresting criminals.

Much tougher sentencing.

Enough is enough.

We will enforce the law

link

 

[smartcooky]

Zia is going to sort it all out



link

I dislike his party and his politics (some people here will call me a bigot because I'm disliking a brown skinned man but I don't care)
However, he is right in the statistics he quotes. British police spent far too much time policing thoughts and hurty words, and not enough time policing actual crimes. Its part of their indoctrination.
I don't believe he or his party are the solution to this.... or to any of the problems Britain is currently facing.