A senior advisor of a Waltham Forest youth group has said 'positive' reforms to stop and search should have come sooner

21 year-old Simone Darling works for the Youth Independent Advisory Group

21 year-old Simone Darling works for the Youth Independent Advisory Group

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter, covering Chingford, Highams Park and Woodford. Call me on 07795 476 625

A member of a Waltham Forest youth group has said major reforms to stop and search powers should have come sooner.

Home secretary Theresa May intends to revise the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Practice to make clear what constitutes "reasonable grounds for suspicion" when stopping members of the public.

The announcement made last week follows a consultation by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, which found 27 per cent, or more than 250,000, stops could have been illegal.

Official figures also showed that people from the black of ethnic minority community are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched and 10 per cent of stops nationally result in an arrest.

Simone Darling, 21, from Chingford, is a senior member of the borough's Youth Independent Advisory Group (YIAG).

YIAG works with the police and the council to shape community safety policy and has previously carried out reports into the lack of public trust in policing.

Ms Darling said: "I feel it is worrying how the police, who are the people supposed to protect and look after the community, did a quarter of a million illegal searches.

"Are they really doing right by the community?

"I feel that Theresa May’s reforms are a positive step in the right direction, although I feel it could’ve come sooner.

"Also how would the police or those monitoring them know searches are being done properly in future if no one complains?

"We need to make sure the community’s views on the police are positive so they feel comfortable to come forward and make complaints, particularly where they’ve had a negative experience."

According to YIAG research in 2013, 95 per cent of the 174 young people surveyed who described having a negative stop and search experience had not made a complaint and 90 per cent felt nothing would be done if they complained.

The main changes proposed include making arrangements for public scrutiny of all forces so the police can be held to account, and an assessment of officers' fitness to use stop and search powers. 

Speaking in Parliament last week, Theresa May said: "Nobody wins when stop and search is misapplied.

"It is a waste of police time. It is unfair, especially to young black men and is bad for public confidence in the police.

"The proposals I have outlined amount to a comprehensive package of reform. I believe that they should contribute to a significant reduction in the overall use of stop and search, better and more intelligence-led stop and search and improved stop-to-arrest ratios.

"But I want to make myself absolutely clear: if the numbers do not come down, if stop and search does not become more targeted, if those stop-to-arrest ratios do not improve considerably, the government will return with primary legislation to make these things happen."

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:32pm Tue 6 May 14

mdj says...

'...people from the black of ethnic minority community are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched and 10 per cent of stops nationally result in an arrest. '

These two figures are mismatched.

What would tell us more is whether the categories of population stopped and searched correlate with those categories charged and/or convicted.
'...people from the black of ethnic minority community are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched and 10 per cent of stops nationally result in an arrest. ' These two figures are mismatched. What would tell us more is whether the categories of population stopped and searched correlate with those categories charged and/or convicted. mdj
  • Score: 13

5:07pm Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

The back community cry out when their members murders remain unsolved in stabbings and shootings, often carried out by people from the same ethnic background and demand 'justice'..

How do they expect the police to prevent such crime without stop and search?

You cannot cry 'foul' when it does not suit.
The back community cry out when their members murders remain unsolved in stabbings and shootings, often carried out by people from the same ethnic background and demand 'justice'.. How do they expect the police to prevent such crime without stop and search? You cannot cry 'foul' when it does not suit. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 5

5:26pm Tue 6 May 14

stickmanny says...

As has been rehearsed over and over again, stop & search barely prevents any crime at all.

What does prevent crime is intelligence-led policing. It also ensures only those suspected of crimes tangle with the law. Win-win.
As has been rehearsed over and over again, stop & search barely prevents any crime at all. What does prevent crime is intelligence-led policing. It also ensures only those suspected of crimes tangle with the law. Win-win. stickmanny
  • Score: -16

8:36pm Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

stickmanny wrote:
As has been rehearsed over and over again, stop & search barely prevents any crime at all.

What does prevent crime is intelligence-led policing. It also ensures only those suspected of crimes tangle with the law. Win-win.
Your argument falls down in numerous cases where police have stopped people and vehicles and this has led to a major crime being averted.

I recall during the IRA campaign, a police officer stopping an articulated lorry in East London and a searched revealed that the lorry was packed with explosives on route to a major landmark. The driver shot the police officer and ran away but was imprisoned.

Numerous drug hauls have been discovered on routine stops, guns discovered and all kinds of stolen goods.

Whilst intelligence lead information (usually from informants) is useful, good old fashioned Bobby's on the beat policing has worked wonders for over 150! Years. You should read 'the Siege of Sydney Street,'.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: As has been rehearsed over and over again, stop & search barely prevents any crime at all. What does prevent crime is intelligence-led policing. It also ensures only those suspected of crimes tangle with the law. Win-win.[/p][/quote]Your argument falls down in numerous cases where police have stopped people and vehicles and this has led to a major crime being averted. I recall during the IRA campaign, a police officer stopping an articulated lorry in East London and a searched revealed that the lorry was packed with explosives on route to a major landmark. The driver shot the police officer and ran away but was imprisoned. Numerous drug hauls have been discovered on routine stops, guns discovered and all kinds of stolen goods. Whilst intelligence lead information (usually from informants) is useful, good old fashioned Bobby's on the beat policing has worked wonders for over 150! Years. You should read 'the Siege of Sydney Street,'. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 0

6:12am Wed 7 May 14

stickmanny says...

Your argument falls down because it is innumerate.

Hint - someone wins the lottery every week.
Your argument falls down because it is innumerate. Hint - someone wins the lottery every week. stickmanny
  • Score: -6

2:08pm Wed 7 May 14

mdj says...

'Your argument falls down because it is innumerate.'

We could really do with some numbers, you're right.

Do you have the ratio of those stopped and searched by ethnic group in relation to those charged by ethnic group following a search?
A large mismatch would indeed indicate unfairness: is there one?
Also, since the younger, crime-committing section of the population in this area has a larger percentage of BEM members than the national average, this could also be prompting false surmises about fairness, if viewed against national averages.
Not many pensioners are being stopped and searched, after all.
'Your argument falls down because it is innumerate.' We could really do with some numbers, you're right. Do you have the ratio of those stopped and searched by ethnic group in relation to those charged by ethnic group following a search? A large mismatch would indeed indicate unfairness: is there one? Also, since the younger, crime-committing section of the population in this area has a larger percentage of BEM members than the national average, this could also be prompting false surmises about fairness, if viewed against national averages. Not many pensioners are being stopped and searched, after all. mdj
  • Score: 4

2:46pm Wed 7 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

mdj wrote:
'Your argument falls down because it is innumerate.'

We could really do with some numbers, you're right.

Do you have the ratio of those stopped and searched by ethnic group in relation to those charged by ethnic group following a search?
A large mismatch would indeed indicate unfairness: is there one?
Also, since the younger, crime-committing section of the population in this area has a larger percentage of BEM members than the national average, this could also be prompting false surmises about fairness, if viewed against national averages.
Not many pensioners are being stopped and searched, after all.
The truth is partly because when pensioners and law abiding citizens are stopped they are generally glad the police are out and about 'doing something'.

When, law breakers, ferals, crooks, rogues and vagabonds are stopped and their criminal activity is impeded, the use any old excuse to riot and cry 'foul'.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Your argument falls down because it is innumerate.' We could really do with some numbers, you're right. Do you have the ratio of those stopped and searched by ethnic group in relation to those charged by ethnic group following a search? A large mismatch would indeed indicate unfairness: is there one? Also, since the younger, crime-committing section of the population in this area has a larger percentage of BEM members than the national average, this could also be prompting false surmises about fairness, if viewed against national averages. Not many pensioners are being stopped and searched, after all.[/p][/quote]The truth is partly because when pensioners and law abiding citizens are stopped they are generally glad the police are out and about 'doing something'. When, law breakers, ferals, crooks, rogues and vagabonds are stopped and their criminal activity is impeded, the use any old excuse to riot and cry 'foul'. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 5

5:03pm Wed 7 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
'Your argument falls down because it is innumerate.'

We could really do with some numbers, you're right.

Do you have the ratio of those stopped and searched by ethnic group in relation to those charged by ethnic group following a search?
A large mismatch would indeed indicate unfairness: is there one?
Also, since the younger, crime-committing section of the population in this area has a larger percentage of BEM members than the national average, this could also be prompting false surmises about fairness, if viewed against national averages.
Not many pensioners are being stopped and searched, after all.
A lot of the stats accounting for prevalence of race etc. are in the original reports

http://www.equalityh
umanrights.com/uploa
ded_files/raceinbrit
ain/ehrc_stop_and_se
arch_report.pdf

This report gives the arrest rate per searches for ethnicity
http://www.equalityh
umanrights.com/uploa
ded_files/ehrc_-_bri
efing_paper_no.5_-_s
60_stop_and_search.p
df

Year 2010/11
White 2.7
Black 2.3
Asian 1.6

So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person.

Yet you are many, many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are non-white.

So as so often Cranberry's arguments are based on nothing other than his own prejudices
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Your argument falls down because it is innumerate.' We could really do with some numbers, you're right. Do you have the ratio of those stopped and searched by ethnic group in relation to those charged by ethnic group following a search? A large mismatch would indeed indicate unfairness: is there one? Also, since the younger, crime-committing section of the population in this area has a larger percentage of BEM members than the national average, this could also be prompting false surmises about fairness, if viewed against national averages. Not many pensioners are being stopped and searched, after all.[/p][/quote]A lot of the stats accounting for prevalence of race etc. are in the original reports http://www.equalityh umanrights.com/uploa ded_files/raceinbrit ain/ehrc_stop_and_se arch_report.pdf This report gives the arrest rate per searches for ethnicity http://www.equalityh umanrights.com/uploa ded_files/ehrc_-_bri efing_paper_no.5_-_s 60_stop_and_search.p df Year 2010/11 White 2.7 Black 2.3 Asian 1.6 So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person. Yet you are many, many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are non-white. So as so often Cranberry's arguments are based on nothing other than his own prejudices Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

6:33pm Wed 7 May 14

mdj says...

'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person'

I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches.

This would have made more sense of the original article.
These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.
'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person' I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches. This would have made more sense of the original article. These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation. mdj
  • Score: -1

1:03am Thu 8 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

mdj wrote:
'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person'

I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches.

This would have made more sense of the original article.
These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.
A disproportionate number of non-whites in prison, convicted of gun and knife crime, muggings, drug dealing and sexual offences. When Sir Paul Condon was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police not many moons ago, he acknowledged in The Evening Standard and media that most muggings in London, were committed by suspects, described by the victim of the offence as being black. What were the police supposed to do? Change the description of the suspect for political correctness as being white?

Additionally, this newspaper used to have a description of the suspect referring to the race and colour, now they have pictures of obvious black or non- white people with a lengthy reference number, eg. 'Suspect 1234567 is described as 25 years old of medium build'., this is of course ridiculous and political correctness gone really crazy.

The statistics speak for themselves, look at the gaol population.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person' I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches. This would have made more sense of the original article. These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.[/p][/quote]A disproportionate number of non-whites in prison, convicted of gun and knife crime, muggings, drug dealing and sexual offences. When Sir Paul Condon was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police not many moons ago, he acknowledged in The Evening Standard and media that most muggings in London, were committed by suspects, described by the victim of the offence as being black. What were the police supposed to do? Change the description of the suspect for political correctness as being white? Additionally, this newspaper used to have a description of the suspect referring to the race and colour, now they have pictures of obvious black or non- white people with a lengthy reference number, eg. 'Suspect 1234567 is described as 25 years old of medium build'., this is of course ridiculous and political correctness gone really crazy. The statistics speak for themselves, look at the gaol population. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -2

9:37am Thu 8 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
mdj wrote:
'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person'

I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches.

This would have made more sense of the original article.
These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.
A disproportionate number of non-whites in prison, convicted of gun and knife crime, muggings, drug dealing and sexual offences. When Sir Paul Condon was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police not many moons ago, he acknowledged in The Evening Standard and media that most muggings in London, were committed by suspects, described by the victim of the offence as being black. What were the police supposed to do? Change the description of the suspect for political correctness as being white?

Additionally, this newspaper used to have a description of the suspect referring to the race and colour, now they have pictures of obvious black or non- white people with a lengthy reference number, eg. 'Suspect 1234567 is described as 25 years old of medium build'., this is of course ridiculous and political correctness gone really crazy.

The statistics speak for themselves, look at the gaol population.
The statistics about "Stop and Search" as an ineffective tool to prevent crime speak for themselves.

Try to stay focused on the article being discussed
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person' I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches. This would have made more sense of the original article. These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.[/p][/quote]A disproportionate number of non-whites in prison, convicted of gun and knife crime, muggings, drug dealing and sexual offences. When Sir Paul Condon was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police not many moons ago, he acknowledged in The Evening Standard and media that most muggings in London, were committed by suspects, described by the victim of the offence as being black. What were the police supposed to do? Change the description of the suspect for political correctness as being white? Additionally, this newspaper used to have a description of the suspect referring to the race and colour, now they have pictures of obvious black or non- white people with a lengthy reference number, eg. 'Suspect 1234567 is described as 25 years old of medium build'., this is of course ridiculous and political correctness gone really crazy. The statistics speak for themselves, look at the gaol population.[/p][/quote]The statistics about "Stop and Search" as an ineffective tool to prevent crime speak for themselves. Try to stay focused on the article being discussed Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

9:50am Thu 8 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person'

I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches.

This would have made more sense of the original article.
These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.
80% more likely would mean if 10 in every 1000 white people was stopped then 18 in every 1000 would be stopped among black people.

The actual figures for London are (from the paper above)

41.3 per 1000 for White
182.9 per 1000 for Black.

So the percentage increase isn't 80%

It's approximately 350%.

The point of the original article and the reason why the actions of Theresa May make perfect sense is that the interpretation of what is "Reasonable Ground for Suspicion" are not defined thereby leaving it open to prejudice. A reasonable ground for suspicion should not be the colour of a person's skin.

Intelligence led searches would be expected to see results. The results of stop and searches are themselves terrible as per the rates earlier.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person' I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches. This would have made more sense of the original article. These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.[/p][/quote]80% more likely would mean if 10 in every 1000 white people was stopped then 18 in every 1000 would be stopped among black people. The actual figures for London are (from the paper above) 41.3 per 1000 for White 182.9 per 1000 for Black. So the percentage increase isn't 80% It's approximately 350%. The point of the original article and the reason why the actions of Theresa May make perfect sense is that the interpretation of what is "Reasonable Ground for Suspicion" are not defined thereby leaving it open to prejudice. A reasonable ground for suspicion should not be the colour of a person's skin. Intelligence led searches would be expected to see results. The results of stop and searches are themselves terrible as per the rates earlier. Alan_1976
  • Score: 4

10:47am Thu 8 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
mdj wrote:
'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person'

I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches.

This would have made more sense of the original article.
These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.
80% more likely would mean if 10 in every 1000 white people was stopped then 18 in every 1000 would be stopped among black people.

The actual figures for London are (from the paper above)

41.3 per 1000 for White
182.9 per 1000 for Black.

So the percentage increase isn't 80%

It's approximately 350%.

The point of the original article and the reason why the actions of Theresa May make perfect sense is that the interpretation of what is "Reasonable Ground for Suspicion" are not defined thereby leaving it open to prejudice. A reasonable ground for suspicion should not be the colour of a person's skin.

Intelligence led searches would be expected to see results. The results of stop and searches are themselves terrible as per the rates earlier.
Focus on prison population.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person' I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches. This would have made more sense of the original article. These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.[/p][/quote]80% more likely would mean if 10 in every 1000 white people was stopped then 18 in every 1000 would be stopped among black people. The actual figures for London are (from the paper above) 41.3 per 1000 for White 182.9 per 1000 for Black. So the percentage increase isn't 80% It's approximately 350%. The point of the original article and the reason why the actions of Theresa May make perfect sense is that the interpretation of what is "Reasonable Ground for Suspicion" are not defined thereby leaving it open to prejudice. A reasonable ground for suspicion should not be the colour of a person's skin. Intelligence led searches would be expected to see results. The results of stop and searches are themselves terrible as per the rates earlier.[/p][/quote]Focus on prison population. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -3

10:56am Thu 8 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
mdj wrote:
'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person'

I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches.

This would have made more sense of the original article.
These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.
80% more likely would mean if 10 in every 1000 white people was stopped then 18 in every 1000 would be stopped among black people.

The actual figures for London are (from the paper above)

41.3 per 1000 for White
182.9 per 1000 for Black.

So the percentage increase isn't 80%

It's approximately 350%.

The point of the original article and the reason why the actions of Theresa May make perfect sense is that the interpretation of what is "Reasonable Ground for Suspicion" are not defined thereby leaving it open to prejudice. A reasonable ground for suspicion should not be the colour of a person's skin.

Intelligence led searches would be expected to see results. The results of stop and searches are themselves terrible as per the rates earlier.
Focus on prison population.
Ok. We'll keep it really simple for you.

Prison population is increased by people being placed in prison.
This happens when people are convicted of a crime
To be convicted you need to have been arrested
Stop and Search as shown by the statistics is awful at producing arrests
Stop and search produces less arrests for black people than white people.

If, as per your views, a black person is more likely to be guilty because there are more of them in prison then if Stop and Search was a useful tool it should lead to more arrests for black people.

It doesn't.

So focusing on prison population helps prove that you are completely incorrect.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'So you are more likely to have an arrest if you stop a white person' I haven't checked the stats you provide, but will take your word for it, assuming the searches were made on the same basis. Some communities may be more prone to provide ammunition for intelligence-based searches. This would have made more sense of the original article. These mismatches are likely to be considerably less worrying than they were thirty years ago. An approx. 80% higher likelihood of being searched between one group and another is not 'Many, many', but still needs explanation.[/p][/quote]80% more likely would mean if 10 in every 1000 white people was stopped then 18 in every 1000 would be stopped among black people. The actual figures for London are (from the paper above) 41.3 per 1000 for White 182.9 per 1000 for Black. So the percentage increase isn't 80% It's approximately 350%. The point of the original article and the reason why the actions of Theresa May make perfect sense is that the interpretation of what is "Reasonable Ground for Suspicion" are not defined thereby leaving it open to prejudice. A reasonable ground for suspicion should not be the colour of a person's skin. Intelligence led searches would be expected to see results. The results of stop and searches are themselves terrible as per the rates earlier.[/p][/quote]Focus on prison population.[/p][/quote]Ok. We'll keep it really simple for you. Prison population is increased by people being placed in prison. This happens when people are convicted of a crime To be convicted you need to have been arrested Stop and Search as shown by the statistics is awful at producing arrests Stop and search produces less arrests for black people than white people. If, as per your views, a black person is more likely to be guilty because there are more of them in prison then if Stop and Search was a useful tool it should lead to more arrests for black people. It doesn't. So focusing on prison population helps prove that you are completely incorrect. Alan_1976
  • Score: 4

12:31pm Thu 8 May 14

mdj says...

I was going on these figures you provided, Alan:
'Year 2010/11
White 2.7
Black 2.3
Asian 1.6

Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does.
We need to compare like with like here.
Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged.
So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive.
This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny.
I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.
I was going on these figures you provided, Alan: 'Year 2010/11 White 2.7 Black 2.3 Asian 1.6 Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does. We need to compare like with like here. Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged. So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive. This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny. I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make. mdj
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Thu 8 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
I was going on these figures you provided, Alan:
'Year 2010/11
White 2.7
Black 2.3
Asian 1.6

Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does.
We need to compare like with like here.
Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged.
So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive.
This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny.
I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.
Perhaps mdj it would be useful for you to read the report? There are a large number of tables which include the result of the exclusion of factors such as greater occurrence of race within the populations being sampled.

Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?

If 27 out of every 1000 blue mystery boxes contained a prize versus 23 out of every 1000 red mystery boxes I wouldn't spend my time opening lots of red boxes.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: I was going on these figures you provided, Alan: 'Year 2010/11 White 2.7 Black 2.3 Asian 1.6 Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does. We need to compare like with like here. Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged. So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive. This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny. I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.[/p][/quote]Perhaps mdj it would be useful for you to read the report? There are a large number of tables which include the result of the exclusion of factors such as greater occurrence of race within the populations being sampled. Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches? If 27 out of every 1000 blue mystery boxes contained a prize versus 23 out of every 1000 red mystery boxes I wouldn't spend my time opening lots of red boxes. Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

2:15pm Thu 8 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
mdj wrote:
I was going on these figures you provided, Alan:
'Year 2010/11
White 2.7
Black 2.3
Asian 1.6

Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does.
We need to compare like with like here.
Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged.
So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive.
This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny.
I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.
Perhaps mdj it would be useful for you to read the report? There are a large number of tables which include the result of the exclusion of factors such as greater occurrence of race within the populations being sampled.

Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?

If 27 out of every 1000 blue mystery boxes contained a prize versus 23 out of every 1000 red mystery boxes I wouldn't spend my time opening lots of red boxes.
You are digging a massive hole for yourself with figures and statistics only you would be bothered to care to read,

People know who are the crooks ruining the country, they do not need to look at numbers.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: I was going on these figures you provided, Alan: 'Year 2010/11 White 2.7 Black 2.3 Asian 1.6 Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does. We need to compare like with like here. Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged. So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive. This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny. I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.[/p][/quote]Perhaps mdj it would be useful for you to read the report? There are a large number of tables which include the result of the exclusion of factors such as greater occurrence of race within the populations being sampled. Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches? If 27 out of every 1000 blue mystery boxes contained a prize versus 23 out of every 1000 red mystery boxes I wouldn't spend my time opening lots of red boxes.[/p][/quote]You are digging a massive hole for yourself with figures and statistics only you would be bothered to care to read, People know who are the crooks ruining the country, they do not need to look at numbers. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -9

2:45pm Thu 8 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
mdj wrote:
I was going on these figures you provided, Alan:
'Year 2010/11
White 2.7
Black 2.3
Asian 1.6

Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does.
We need to compare like with like here.
Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged.
So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive.
This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny.
I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.
Perhaps mdj it would be useful for you to read the report? There are a large number of tables which include the result of the exclusion of factors such as greater occurrence of race within the populations being sampled.

Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?

If 27 out of every 1000 blue mystery boxes contained a prize versus 23 out of every 1000 red mystery boxes I wouldn't spend my time opening lots of red boxes.
You are digging a massive hole for yourself with figures and statistics only you would be bothered to care to read,

People know who are the crooks ruining the country, they do not need to look at numbers.
Thanks for clarifying that "facts" are not something you need. It's helpful to those who might have been bothered to read your baseless nonsense.

Good to clear up that your arguments are based not on any actual information but based upon.

People "know" that water goes down the plug hole in a different direction in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. Doesn't make it true or correct.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: I was going on these figures you provided, Alan: 'Year 2010/11 White 2.7 Black 2.3 Asian 1.6 Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does. We need to compare like with like here. Your figures seem to indicate that a large multiple of black people are searched as against white people, followed by a slightly lesser multiple being charged. So your figures - as quoted by you here in brief, I haven't read the report - argue that searches leading to prosecution are about three times more likely to be performed on BME suspects, even though the search rate per prosecution is c.80% less productive. This would justify a big disparity in searches, even though they clearly could be better targeted, and need scrutiny. I'm not sure that's the point you were trying to make.[/p][/quote]Perhaps mdj it would be useful for you to read the report? There are a large number of tables which include the result of the exclusion of factors such as greater occurrence of race within the populations being sampled. Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches? If 27 out of every 1000 blue mystery boxes contained a prize versus 23 out of every 1000 red mystery boxes I wouldn't spend my time opening lots of red boxes.[/p][/quote]You are digging a massive hole for yourself with figures and statistics only you would be bothered to care to read, People know who are the crooks ruining the country, they do not need to look at numbers.[/p][/quote]Thanks for clarifying that "facts" are not something you need. It's helpful to those who might have been bothered to read your baseless nonsense. Good to clear up that your arguments are based not on any actual information but based upon. People "know" that water goes down the plug hole in a different direction in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. Doesn't make it true or correct. Alan_1976
  • Score: 3

2:49pm Thu 8 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

The police have a special unit, Trident, specifically to deal with black on black shootings and stabbings. The do not have A Blue Rinse Squad to deal with 'OAP ON OAP' crime, so who do you think the police would want to stop and search at night, a granny coming out of a bingo hall at 10pm or a gang of feral youths in a cloud of cannabis smoke hanging around the notorious estate in South Leytonstone?
The police have a special unit, Trident, specifically to deal with black on black shootings and stabbings. The do not have A Blue Rinse Squad to deal with 'OAP ON OAP' crime, so who do you think the police would want to stop and search at night, a granny coming out of a bingo hall at 10pm or a gang of feral youths in a cloud of cannabis smoke hanging around the notorious estate in South Leytonstone? Villagecranberry
  • Score: -3

3:14pm Thu 8 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
The police have a special unit, Trident, specifically to deal with black on black shootings and stabbings. The do not have A Blue Rinse Squad to deal with 'OAP ON OAP' crime, so who do you think the police would want to stop and search at night, a granny coming out of a bingo hall at 10pm or a gang of feral youths in a cloud of cannabis smoke hanging around the notorious estate in South Leytonstone?
You know we're talking about race right and the inappropriate application of Stop and Search based on racial lines.

Probably best you stop now. You seem to have missed the entire point of the article....
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: The police have a special unit, Trident, specifically to deal with black on black shootings and stabbings. The do not have A Blue Rinse Squad to deal with 'OAP ON OAP' crime, so who do you think the police would want to stop and search at night, a granny coming out of a bingo hall at 10pm or a gang of feral youths in a cloud of cannabis smoke hanging around the notorious estate in South Leytonstone?[/p][/quote]You know we're talking about race right and the inappropriate application of Stop and Search based on racial lines. Probably best you stop now. You seem to have missed the entire point of the article.... Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

6:14pm Thu 8 May 14

stickmanny says...

"Never let facts get in the way of dogma"

- Cornbeefur
"Never let facts get in the way of dogma" - Cornbeefur stickmanny
  • Score: 1

6:21pm Thu 8 May 14

mdj says...

'Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?'

Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all!
Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection.
These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them.
23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.
'Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches?' Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all! Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection. These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them. 23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger. mdj
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Thu 8 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
'Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?'

Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all!
Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection.
These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them.
23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.
Mdj,

That shows nothing of the sort.

That shows that there is no difference whether you search a black person or a white person. They are equally likely to be prosecuted. Therefore there is no reason to target more black people than white people. But more black people do. If as the numbers show any black person is no more likely to be guilty than a white person then why target them more often?

If I take a group of 1000 black people and 1000 white people but I sample a greater number of the black people than white people I will end up finding more guilty black people. Eg if I take 100 from the black group and 20 from the white I will find 10 left handed black people and 2 left handed white people (the rates of left handedness being 1 in 10 in both)

According to your logic that means I can call that a fair sample and judge that more black people are left handed. After all the rate of handedness in both the group of 100 black and 20 white is 1 in 10.

I have clearly over sampled the black population though. If I wanted an equal sample and you gave me those distributions I'd say you were biased as your sample clearly is.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches?' Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all! Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection. These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them. 23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.[/p][/quote]Mdj, That shows nothing of the sort. That shows that there is no difference whether you search a black person or a white person. They are equally likely to be prosecuted. Therefore there is no reason to target more black people than white people. But more black people do. If as the numbers show any black person is no more likely to be guilty than a white person then why target them more often? If I take a group of 1000 black people and 1000 white people but I sample a greater number of the black people than white people I will end up finding more guilty black people. Eg if I take 100 from the black group and 20 from the white I will find 10 left handed black people and 2 left handed white people (the rates of left handedness being 1 in 10 in both) According to your logic that means I can call that a fair sample and judge that more black people are left handed. After all the rate of handedness in both the group of 100 black and 20 white is 1 in 10. I have clearly over sampled the black population though. If I wanted an equal sample and you gave me those distributions I'd say you were biased as your sample clearly is. Alan_1976
  • Score: 3

11:11pm Fri 9 May 14

mdj says...

' ..I will end up finding more guilty black people. '
Obviously: but NOT a greater proportion. The figures show that those people selected for search result in no statistically dissimilar number of prosecutions if broken down by ethnicity.

Presumably people are not selected at random, but on the basis that they look 'dodgy' according to indicators based on experience , eg (and I'm surmising here) hanging around known crime hot-spots in groups wearing loose-fitting sports clothes and distinctive baseball caps of a type that says 'Beware of me, I'm in a gang'.

We may ask whether this approx. 2.5% strike ratio indicates the best use of police time, but arguing that it shows racial bias is not supported by the figures you have chosen to quote.
' ..I will end up finding more guilty black people. ' Obviously: but NOT a greater proportion. The figures show that those people selected for search result in no statistically dissimilar number of prosecutions if broken down by ethnicity. Presumably people are not selected at random, but on the basis that they look 'dodgy' according to indicators based on experience , eg (and I'm surmising here) hanging around known crime hot-spots in groups wearing loose-fitting sports clothes and distinctive baseball caps of a type that says 'Beware of me, I'm in a gang'. We may ask whether this approx. 2.5% strike ratio indicates the best use of police time, but arguing that it shows racial bias is not supported by the figures you have chosen to quote. mdj
  • Score: -2

6:46am Sat 10 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
' ..I will end up finding more guilty black people. '
Obviously: but NOT a greater proportion. The figures show that those people selected for search result in no statistically dissimilar number of prosecutions if broken down by ethnicity.

Presumably people are not selected at random, but on the basis that they look 'dodgy' according to indicators based on experience , eg (and I'm surmising here) hanging around known crime hot-spots in groups wearing loose-fitting sports clothes and distinctive baseball caps of a type that says 'Beware of me, I'm in a gang'.

We may ask whether this approx. 2.5% strike ratio indicates the best use of police time, but arguing that it shows racial bias is not supported by the figures you have chosen to quote.
Mdj,

The figures for stop and search show that you are SEVEN times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are part of an ethnic minority. But you are no more statistically likely to be arrested as a result of that search.

From the example finding 100 black people versus 20 white people is a HIGHER proportion. But there weren't more left handed black people. You just sampled them more.

You have stopped and searched a HIGHER proportion of black people where the results of those searches lead to NO HIGHER proportion of arrests.

So black people are subjected to more searches despite they being less likely to be guilty.

Again stop presuming. You asked for numbers. The reports are there with the full set of statistics. Maybe just read the executive summary. The conclusions are simple. The existing use of the s60 stop and search shows clear racial bias.

A racial bias that is not based on evidence of it being an effective reason to choose. That is why the basis on which stop and searches can be made is being reviewed to attempt to address this and perhaps make them more successful so that they are based on things such as indicators that actually may be correlated to guilt.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: ' ..I will end up finding more guilty black people. ' Obviously: but NOT a greater proportion. The figures show that those people selected for search result in no statistically dissimilar number of prosecutions if broken down by ethnicity. Presumably people are not selected at random, but on the basis that they look 'dodgy' according to indicators based on experience , eg (and I'm surmising here) hanging around known crime hot-spots in groups wearing loose-fitting sports clothes and distinctive baseball caps of a type that says 'Beware of me, I'm in a gang'. We may ask whether this approx. 2.5% strike ratio indicates the best use of police time, but arguing that it shows racial bias is not supported by the figures you have chosen to quote.[/p][/quote]Mdj, The figures for stop and search show that you are SEVEN times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are part of an ethnic minority. But you are no more statistically likely to be arrested as a result of that search. From the example finding 100 black people versus 20 white people is a HIGHER proportion. But there weren't more left handed black people. You just sampled them more. You have stopped and searched a HIGHER proportion of black people where the results of those searches lead to NO HIGHER proportion of arrests. So black people are subjected to more searches despite they being less likely to be guilty. Again stop presuming. You asked for numbers. The reports are there with the full set of statistics. Maybe just read the executive summary. The conclusions are simple. The existing use of the s60 stop and search shows clear racial bias. A racial bias that is not based on evidence of it being an effective reason to choose. That is why the basis on which stop and searches can be made is being reviewed to attempt to address this and perhaps make them more successful so that they are based on things such as indicators that actually may be correlated to guilt. Alan_1976
  • Score: 3

6:53am Sat 10 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Mdj,

Your partial quotes are also more than misleading be they accidental or deliberate.

I wrote "This report gives the arrest rate per searches for ethnicity" so the numbers that show how many arrests per search. So how likely is someone to be guilty.

You then selectively refer to those numbers later as follows...

"Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does."

Except of course if you had included my numbers with their description you would have seen that those numbers are an exact explanation of "the numbers subsequently charged" as they are the number of arrests per search.
Mdj, Your partial quotes are also more than misleading be they accidental or deliberate. I wrote "This report gives the arrest rate per searches for ethnicity" so the numbers that show how many arrests per search. So how likely is someone to be guilty. You then selectively refer to those numbers later as follows... "Your new figures relate to numbers stopped and searched, which show a huge disparity, but not to the numbers subsequently charged, which is what the small resume above does." Except of course if you had included my numbers with their description you would have seen that those numbers are an exact explanation of "the numbers subsequently charged" as they are the number of arrests per search. Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

7:21am Sat 10 May 14

stickmanny says...

mdj wrote:
'Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?'

Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all!
Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection.
These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them.
23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.
Let's just round this one off with the government's own research.

For a given offence black / ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested, charged, and given custodial sentences than the white population.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches?' Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all! Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection. These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them. 23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.[/p][/quote]Let's just round this one off with the government's own research. For a given offence black / ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested, charged, and given custodial sentences than the white population. stickmanny
  • Score: 1

4:53pm Sat 10 May 14

westside_o says...

stickmanny wrote:
mdj wrote:
'Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?'

Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all!
Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection.
These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them.
23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.
Let's just round this one off with the government's own research.

For a given offence black / ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested, charged, and given custodial sentences than the white population.
White, black, purple with yellow spots .....
What does it matter ?
If found guilty, pay the price!
None of us are forced to carry arms.
None of us are forced to carry drugs.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches?' Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all! Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection. These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them. 23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.[/p][/quote]Let's just round this one off with the government's own research. For a given offence black / ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested, charged, and given custodial sentences than the white population.[/p][/quote]White, black, purple with yellow spots ..... What does it matter ? If found guilty, pay the price! None of us are forced to carry arms. None of us are forced to carry drugs. westside_o
  • Score: -2

5:29pm Sat 10 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

westside_o wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
mdj wrote:
'Can you explain how a rate that shows
that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted
for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted.
justifies a disparity in searches?'

Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all!
Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection.
These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them.
23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.
Let's just round this one off with the government's own research.

For a given offence black / ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested, charged, and given custodial sentences than the white population.
White, black, purple with yellow spots .....
What does it matter ?
If found guilty, pay the price!
None of us are forced to carry arms.
None of us are forced to carry drugs.
The thousands of ethnic minority people stopped and searched when innocent on the basis of their skin colour aren't carrying arms or carrying drugs.
[quote][p][bold]westside_o[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Can you explain how a rate that shows that for every 1000 white people stopped and searched 27 were prosecuted for every 1000 black people stopped and searched 23 were prosecuted. justifies a disparity in searches?' Very simply: that shows almost no disparity at all! Those rates are virtually identical, indicating that the selection of subjects to search is pretty much on target, and disprove that race is the basis of selection. These figures show that the police are doing much better than one would have expected, given the allegations about prejudice that are often levelled against them. 23/1000 v 27/1000 is within statistical error. Sample variations by region could well be larger.[/p][/quote]Let's just round this one off with the government's own research. For a given offence black / ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested, charged, and given custodial sentences than the white population.[/p][/quote]White, black, purple with yellow spots ..... What does it matter ? If found guilty, pay the price! None of us are forced to carry arms. None of us are forced to carry drugs.[/p][/quote]The thousands of ethnic minority people stopped and searched when innocent on the basis of their skin colour aren't carrying arms or carrying drugs. Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

5:56pm Sat 10 May 14

stickmanny says...

And it "matters" because the "price" depends on your skin colour.
And it "matters" because the "price" depends on your skin colour. stickmanny
  • Score: 1

11:22pm Sun 11 May 14

mdj says...

'Again stop presuming. You asked for numbers.'

And you provided them - for which thanks - but I argued that they do not show what you believe they show.
What would show bias would be if the percentage of prosecutions leading to convictions was significantly lower for BME subjects of search, showing that the searches were not justified by results.
If that figure exists - which would certainly convince me - you haven't chosen to produce it .
I'm not saying that bias does not exist - I'm not in a position to judge; simply that these figures aren't the evidence for it that you believe.
'Again stop presuming. You asked for numbers.' And you provided them - for which thanks - but I argued that they do not show what you believe they show. What would show bias would be if the percentage of prosecutions leading to convictions was significantly lower for BME subjects of search, showing that the searches were not justified by results. If that figure exists - which would certainly convince me - you haven't chosen to produce it . I'm not saying that bias does not exist - I'm not in a position to judge; simply that these figures aren't the evidence for it that you believe. mdj
  • Score: 0

7:36am Mon 12 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
'Again stop presuming. You asked for numbers.'

And you provided them - for which thanks - but I argued that they do not show what you believe they show.
What would show bias would be if the percentage of prosecutions leading to convictions was significantly lower for BME subjects of search, showing that the searches were not justified by results.
If that figure exists - which would certainly convince me - you haven't chosen to produce it .
I'm not saying that bias does not exist - I'm not in a position to judge; simply that these figures aren't the evidence for it that you believe.
MDJ,

What you are asking me for is a set of numbers that would justify the probability of being searched as a BME being lower if there was no bias.

A higher rate of prosecution would justify extra searches. The same prosecution rate justifies the same rate of searching. I.e. You should not see a bias towards greater numbers of searches.

If you are no more likely to be guilty then your likelihood of being searched should be also not more likely.

The figures I have repeatedly produced show that you are no more likely to be guilty but you are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched.

I don't know how simple I can make this for you . You still haven't read the papers.

Imagine that instead of having speed cameras act against all cars they only bothered to take photographs against certain cars. They should be intelligent cameras. The criteria we should use is one that leads to a higher prosecution percentage. If you wanted to take more photographs of red cars then you would expect red car drivers to be up in arms and you would need to show that they were more likely to be guilty.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'Again stop presuming. You asked for numbers.' And you provided them - for which thanks - but I argued that they do not show what you believe they show. What would show bias would be if the percentage of prosecutions leading to convictions was significantly lower for BME subjects of search, showing that the searches were not justified by results. If that figure exists - which would certainly convince me - you haven't chosen to produce it . I'm not saying that bias does not exist - I'm not in a position to judge; simply that these figures aren't the evidence for it that you believe.[/p][/quote]MDJ, What you are asking me for is a set of numbers that would justify the probability of being searched as a BME being lower if there was no bias. A higher rate of prosecution would justify extra searches. The same prosecution rate justifies the same rate of searching. I.e. You should not see a bias towards greater numbers of searches. If you are no more likely to be guilty then your likelihood of being searched should be also not more likely. The figures I have repeatedly produced show that you are no more likely to be guilty but you are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched. I don't know how simple I can make this for you . You still haven't read the papers. Imagine that instead of having speed cameras act against all cars they only bothered to take photographs against certain cars. They should be intelligent cameras. The criteria we should use is one that leads to a higher prosecution percentage. If you wanted to take more photographs of red cars then you would expect red car drivers to be up in arms and you would need to show that they were more likely to be guilty. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree