Any London left?

DonDaddyD

Ben6899 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Trident promotes itself as specifically dealing with "black on back gun crime" last time I looked. I've always thought that was counter productive as it generally sends out a negative message (amongst the many) about the black community.

So let's just paint over the cracks and say Trident is for something else.

Sometimes the message is more powerful than the action.

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Whether the reputation is deserved or not, its the reputation they have.

get off the fence.

You made a statement - defend it or change it.

I really have no interest in discussing this further with you, sorry :?

rjsterry

I read Garnett's posts in a similar light to Sewinman's but maybe I was being too charitable. Anyway, my understanding of Operation Trident (which may be wrong) is that it was set up to deal with a particular pattern of crime that tended to be limited to the 'black community'*, so not acknowledging this would have been counterproductive. Adopting an attitude that you mustn't mention race or ethnicity of people involved in crime (victim or perpetrator) isn't very helpful to understanding and dealing with that crime, where ethnicity may be a factor. We have to be able to talk about it, if only to be able to say 'is it an issue? Not in this case'.

As regards the rioting in the West Midlands, the tensions seem to be between the Afro-Caribean and Asian communities at the moment.

*whatever that might be - I have always assumed this meant Afro-Caribean, but communities aren't as neatly defined as that.

Barry Nice

Whilst DDD and Garnet et al have generally had an intelectual pasting I think it is because they are not engaged in exactly the same debate.

I do not think the MET (or any other Police force) have a racial bias. They have a demographic bias. As human beings we are hard wired to spot patterns. Unfortunatelly regardless of how DDD wants to try and deflect it, in London at least, most of these kids seem to be black. Now it seems to me that they are not involved because they are black but because the areas in which they live are predimonantly Afro-Caribean. Then you put yourself into the head of a Police officer, if a very large proportion of the criminal population that you deal with every day is predominanty black what will your pattern making brain assume evey black person is in the first instance?

In my part of the country it is not particularly racially diverse and here the police tend to activley persecute people in a particular brand of check cap, the vast majority of which are white.

Some of the posters here, particularly those ementioned above, seem to be flipping back and forth between race issues and demographic issues and creating all sorts of confusion and offence

FoldingJoe

notsoblue wrote:

Greg T wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Whether the reputation is deserved or not, its the reputation they have.

get off the fence.

You made a statement - defend it or change it.

I really have no interest in discussing this further with you, sorry :?

I did stick this in earlier, but might have been missed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley

sketchley

There may very well of been more black looter in Clapham than another group. But there are probably more black teenagers in Clapham than any other group. The eye witness reports in enfield say the teenagers where mainly white, see that guardian link from early posted by JZed. It's not that I'm doubting the eyewitness reports on here from Clapham, it's just that's only Clapham and only part of the story.

This was not a race issue. Comments pointing to it being so are not helpful as they distract from the real underlying causes which have nothing to do with race.

bigmat

There's potentially a racial element involved. A significant proportion of the rioters and looters appear to have come from the black community. That statement is based on various eye witness accounts posted here and elsewhere. Now, I fully accept that it appears to have been predominantly the poorer parts of society involved, and those parts of society have a higher than average black population. Does that fully explain the situation? Is it wrong to even ask that question? I'm not jumping to conclusions or pointing the finger, but DDD seems to find it abhorrent to even consider whether certain parts of society may have been more inclined to criminal behaviour over the past few days. To not even investigate the issue properly means there is no way that any underlying problems (and its more likely to be the treatment of the black population by the police / wider social imbalance etc. than black kids being inherently "bad") can be identified and dealt with.

Come on DDD, surely you can see that at the very least this needs to be looked at properly?

il_principe

fidbod wrote:

This is worth a read in relations to the way this thread has rund
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100100316/black-children-think-the-police-are-racist-we-must-teach-them-about-the-1980s/

Excellent article.

I'm sure that there are a few racists in the police, just as there are racists, homophobes etc in all walks of life (although hopefully fewer in cosmopolitan London than elsewhere in the UK). However I refuse to believe that the police are institutionally racist, in 1970/80 maybe, but not in 2011, their colleagues would not put up with it. I doubt these riots have anything to do with race.

I suppose it's probably the parents who are to blame. Just as some children with racist parents will grow up with racist beliefs, children who grow up being told that the police are racist - well some of them will believe it regardless of any evidence/personal experience.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

I really have no interest in discussing this further with you, sorry :?

Thanks - That will do just fine.

I can understand not wanting to admit you are wrong when caught out. Don't apologise to me - I'm booking the win.

Joe - honestly - you think Harry Stanley is proof of endemic met Police trigger happy offing people?

In twelve years we have had two fatal shootings where an innocent has been shot, both related to faulty terrorist intelligence and somewhat understandable and one accident.

In that time how many times have armed plod been deployed? So I will maintain that met Police do not have a reputation for repeated shooting of innocent people and if you think they do you are misinformed or think that one own goal every six years amongst hundreds of incidents is sufficient to warrant the "reputation".

You have more chance of winning the lottery than you do of getting shot by the Met

Your chances increase alarmingly if you carry a handgun.

Barry Nice

Well said Greg T.

FoldingJoe

Greg T wrote:

Joe - honestly - you think Harry Stanley is proof of endemic met Police trigger happy offing people?.

Do I think it is endemic, no, but that isn't what you were after. You wanted another example from NSB and I gave you one.

Two, in my mind, is two too many.

How many would you like for it to become unacceptable?

I don't disagree that the job of an armed officer is a hard one, but that is the job they chose.

Greg T

FoldingJoe wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Joe - honestly - you think Harry Stanley is proof of endemic met Police trigger happy offing people?.

Do I think it is endemic, no, but that isn't what you were after. You wanted another example from NSB and I gave you one.

Two, in my mind, is two too many.

How many would you like for it to become unacceptable?

I don't disagree that the job of an armed officer is a hard one, but that is the job they chose.

Fair enough.

How many would it need to be? If the two in twelve years were "he looked at me a bit funny so I put three rounds into the middle of the visible mass" I'd say that something was wrong.

I can understand why Menezes was shot, however regretable. Stanley isn't so compelling but you are second guessing a man making split second calls in difficult situation.

So a mix of maths and situation....

We put armed plod on the street someone's got to do it and on balance their record is pretty good considering the number of incidents they are involved in and the very pressured environment. Two is too many but you throw enough balls eventually you drop one - it's a statistics game where the the one in a thousand roll ends with someone getting shot. That's bad if you are 1,000 but it would be worse if the dice wasn't rolled and we brought batons and strong language to gun fights.

I'd give armed plod the benefit of the doubt.

If I wanted to get shot by plod I think I'd have to work quite hard to manage it.

If I wanted to get shot / stabbed by a gangster I think it would be much easier and no IPCC would be called in by his gang to make sure the action was "justified".

Distrust the Police if you like (and Joe I'm not saying this to you as you've not suggested you do) - anyone whose business was gutted or got mugged this week would have given anything for a carrier to turn up loaded with TSG gorillas swinging Hickory and taking names.

Coach H

[Pedant on] I think you'll find they are those silly expanding metal things now Greg, using Hickory was probably banned due to Human rights issues over the size of the bruise [Pedant off]

mrc1

Just to muddy the waters further, check out the guy on the right of this picture.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8693000/London-and-UK-riots-50-powerful-images.html?image=14

sketchley

And

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -live.html

Ben6899

mrc1 wrote:

Just to muddy the waters further, check out the guy on the right of this picture.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8693000/London-and-UK-riots-50-powerful-images.html?image=14

For the sake of clarity. This photograph is on the website with perps labelled A, B, C, D etc for people to identify. The chap in the jacket is not labelled and so, I guess, not wanted for looting, To be fair, he is standing there in a rather passive manner.

clarkey cat

For the sake of clarity. This photograph is on the website with perps labelled A, B, C, D etc for people to identify. The chap in the jacket is not labelled and so, I guess, not wanted for looting, To be fair, he is standing there in a rather passive manner.

He has got a bit of a "living in Hackney for some edgy life experience until the old trust fund matures" look about him.

jonginge

clarkey cat wrote:

For the sake of clarity. This photograph is on the website with perps labelled A, B, C, D etc for people to identify. The chap in the jacket is not labelled and so, I guess, not wanted for looting, To be fair, he is standing there in a rather passive manner.

He has got a bit of a "living in Hackney for some edgy life experience until the old trust fund matures" look about him.

Tim Nice-But-Dim...

mrc1

JonGinge wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

For the sake of clarity. This photograph is on the website with perps labelled A, B, C, D etc for people to identify. The chap in the jacket is not labelled and so, I guess, not wanted for looting, To be fair, he is standing there in a rather passive manner.

He has got a bit of a "living in Hackney for some edgy life experience until the old trust fund matures" look about him.

Tim Nice-But-Dim...

And the winner of the "Mr Best Dressed Looter 2011" is.........

fatherted

Sketchley wrote:

There may very well of been more black looter in Clapham than another group.

But there are probably more black teenagers in Clapham than any other group. .

Do you *really* think there are MORE black teenagers living in Clapham than white , asian and far eastern ?????

DonDaddyD

rjsterry,

I don't think Trident in it's approach is either productive or positive. I do, however, think it is needed.

DDD on the telegraph article,

I don't think the police are nearly as bad now as they were iIn my Dad's day. Back then they were institutionally racist. It's bullshit when these people say we're protesting about the police, Government et al.

Likewise most people from poorer backgrounds complaining today are almost insulting compared to poor when my Grandparents came over and when my Dad was growing up. Most people who wanted to get ahead had multiple jobs an turned their hands to anthing just to get ahead.

I'll go on to say that parental punnishment now is nothing like it was back then. Riot? The beating you would have got back then - in fact the psychology fear of having to go upstairs and choose the belt that would moments later be wrapping itself around you skin - was enough to make you stay at home.

bigmat,
I stand by my assertion. I've just watched a clip showing people looting in Birmingham, mixture of urbanites. Likewise the clip of the kid being helped and then robbed was being robbed by a white and black person. The white person bopping away...

You see, the thing about the younger generation that most of you (many older) don't realise, acknowledge or maybe give credit for is that their culture (the clothes, the walk, the slang) is far more ethnically integrated than older generations. They operate in far more ethnically diverse social circles - this becomes more apparent the further down you go the social classes.

Young people share the same music, clothes, food, slang and interests far more freely than any older generation does and YES while those may have been heavily influenced by previous Black culture (American/Jamican) , young people have taken and made it theirs in their own way and not limited said "ownership" to ethnicity. Hence the acknowledge term 'Urban Culture'. They've been born here and raised here like - for most - their parents. Their self, social and group identity is British and they probably identify themeselves as British. So why should this be about race when it isn't likely to be the case for them. This aint 1980s Brixton when some were still fresh off the boat and others were being raised by those who came off the boat. These are quite simply British people with some people living in those areas acting in such a detrimental way to society, so it is a social issue.

The solution isn't "what do we do about black people?" To do so when it is clearly a societal issue would be counter productive because society as wholle needs to ask itself serious questions. The solution amongst many others IMO resides in "what do we do about youth culture" (as a whole) and "what do we do to improve social mobility, aspiratioal and social values in the disaffected lower classes". At the same time real questions have to be asked about law enforcement and "how respect for police and their authority is rebuilt". (amongst the many other issues).

But I'm steadfast in the belief that this isn't about race, it isn't a racially driven issue or 'racial looting' and therefore the solution doesn't reside in dealing with any one ethnic group.

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

Distrust the Police if you like....

Ah, I get it now. You thought I personally distrusted the police. Well you were wrong.

tailwindhome

Ben6899 wrote:

mrc1 wrote:

Just to muddy the waters further, check out the guy on the right of this picture.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8693000/London-and-UK-riots-50-powerful-images.html?image=14

For the sake of clarity. This photograph is on the website with perps labelled A, B, C, D etc for people to identify. The chap in the jacket is not labelled and so, I guess, not wanted for looting, To be fair, he is standing there in a rather passive manner.

A shop mannequin perhaps?

tailwindhome

fatherted wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

There may very well of been more black looter in Clapham than another group.

But there are probably more black teenagers in Clapham than any other group. .

Do you *really* think there are MORE black teenagers living in Clapham than white , asian and far eastern ?????

[Pacino]We thought we were out but he dragged us back in [/Pacino]

antfly

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

DDD, if you accuse someone of being racist, then you have to be absolutely, ABSolutely, ABSOLUTELY sure that you're correct in that accusation.

I believe you calling Garnett "vile" and "sickening" was based on you thinking he is making racist comments. I also believe you don't have any real credible evidence to do that.

I'm trying to be the voice of reason here - I'd suggest Garnett double checks the fact in bold.

No I called him a blinkered prick. I called antfly, and quite rightly, a racist.

Maybe I should have quoted the entirity of his posts. Maybe I could have quoted a better example. I can't be bothered to go back over Garnett's posts to point out why I'll simply repost what I've written:

DDD wrote:

I think you are a blinkered prick.

Here's why, you based on your singular experience of witnessing the riots in Clapham you've continually asserted that the majority of rioters were black. Then you've jumped to the assumption that this must clearly be a race issue.

Despite every single report person and the rioters themselves saying that this was nothing to do with race you've stuck with that view.

I'm not denying that the majority of rioters may have been of another ethnicity other than white british. What is clear is that they the riots and the reason for rioting were not a race related issue.

If there is an overwhelming number of other ethnicities involved in the riots but the reason for rioting was not race related then it is highly probable that any solution (mirroring the cause) will have nothing to do with race.

I also asserted that under darkness, and a hoodie, cap or scarf around the face it may be hard to identify what ethnicity the person may be.

Fact of the matter is this. Garnett (Alf) saw a large number of black people looting in Clapham and therefore, it seems, thinks that

(i) the riots that have happened (all over the UK I might add) are race related.

(ii) hasn't considered any external or other circumstances as to why the riots happened.

He mostly saw black people so asserts that it must be a specific race issue and/or the problem resides within the black community and not society itself.

What he said is not racist like antfly's brilliant "Reduce the black population = no riots" fvcking moronic bullshit. As though no other ethnicities riot.

But I believe it is pretty blinkered.

But I didn't actually say that and nor did I mean that at all. That would be a racist comment but you have misquoted and misinterperated.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Distrust the Police if you like....

Ah, I get it now. You thought I personally distrusted the police. Well you were wrong.

You left once with your arse handed to you in a bag...

Why do you think I was talking to you?

Want to talk about

The Met have a track record of shooting people in cases where they've subsequently been found to have acted improperly. Its not unreasonable to suggest that they may have here

some more?

sketchley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... EeflIh-08I

Sums it up really. Needs sound.

sketchley

mrc1

Sketchley wrote:

http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/

Some classic ones.

mrc1

Looks like he didn't make it through without losing his chinos