Oh Mike, trolling, really? What am I saying that is inflammatory or insulting?
I didn't post the 1st 2 videos of officers stopping black drivers. I reacted to comments that seemed to be assuming that the Police were in the right for both stops. Nothing wrong, the people being stopped for the 10th and 20th time for being black and in possession of a nice car were being "drama queens".
Regarding the Ely stop. You seem to be missing the point so I will spell it out for you. Why is it ok to associate black people with drug crime? Are white people not involved in drug dealing?
The points that I have been making are.
1. There have been thorough and detailed reports that have concluded there is racial bias in the criminal justice system and the phrase "Institutional Racism" has been conveyed upon the Police. 2. Recent Government statistics seem to support that black people are disproportionately targeted for stop and search and that they are proportionately stopping innocent black people much more often than they stop innocent white people. 3. I have suggested that while these Police actions are in the majority probably not being made by overtly racist people, there is likely to be a racial bias in place.
I am having real difficulty understanding that conclusion
Mine or hers?
Yours
Well I am not going to explain it then.
I am surprised you thought her explanation was clear.
Nick Ferrari struggled with it on times.
I didn't post this originally because of the undecided way in which she described their trip.
Even though they were aware that the police were following them, they cunningly decide to avoid a 15 minute wait (which during the course of her explanation is immediately reduced to 10 mins, and finally reduced to 5 mins), at a traffic light by going off on an adventure through some side streets, before navigating back on to the main road that they were on in the first place, while the police continued to follow. Seemingly oblivious of how suspicious this may look. They then refuse to stop when asked to do so by the police. They decided not to stop as it was not safe to stop with a baby in the car despite the fact that a police van would be parked behind them. They also thought it preferable to stop near their home, because they felt safer because their neighbours were there, and because they had another car with the same or similar number plate, it would prove that the car they were in wasn't stolen, and that they weren't making up an address. The fact that it was a longer road also came into the equation. So by refusing to stop they were just being helpful. This is despite the fact that I would guess that the police would have been aware of the name and address of the registered owner of the car was by this stage.
She seemed to think that the fact that they were running late, had a lunch reservation, a baby to look after, and had to drop the baby at the babysitters, were an integral part of the story.
Why is she unable to just say no?
Does she think that saying nononononononononono, is more convincing?
They were stopped because her car is all black, and her partner was a black man?
the people being stopped for the 10th and 20th time for being black and in possession of a nice car were being "drama queens".
This wasn't the reason for the stop. This is the whole point of the conversation. How is it possible, on the facts of this individual stop to prove that being black is the reason for the stop. There are other reasons that are pertinent that have been cited many times. Being stopped incorrectly 9 times does not mean the 10th time is also incorrect. It also doesn't mean that if nothing is found as a result of the stop that the stop itself was incorrect.
Regarding the Ely stop. You seem to be missing the point so I will spell it out for you. Why is it ok to associate black people with drug crime? Are white people not involved in drug dealing?
It's comments like these that lead me to believe you're arguing in bad faith and deliberately trying to distort what has been said. It is not ok to simply associate black people with drug crime. White people are also involved in drug dealing. In this particular case the officer suggests that the intel is that the gangs they are looking for have this characteristic. In my view, it is ok to search for someone based on the characteristics that they match, hence my examples which I do not doubt for one second you understand. Seems like you don't want to offend black people that aren't involved and so would be quite happy to interview white people to see if they are part of the black gang.
1. There have been thorough and detailed reports that have concluded there is racial bias in the criminal justice system and the phrase "Institutional Racism" has been conveyed upon the Police.
2. Recent Government statistics seem to support that black people are disproportionately targeted for stop and search and that they are proportionately stopping innocent black people much more often than they stop innocent white people.
Yes, statistics can be problematic and not reveal the full story immediately without some work, but ok, let's just assume this is true and reveals a problem.
3. I have suggested that while these Police actions are in the majority probably not being made by overtly racist people, there is likely to be a racial bias in place.
Racial bias is just one bias, there are biases to do with affluence, driving behaviour, your choice of car, your area, your age, your gender, whether you have a calm/nervous disposition, whether you're a loud talker, whether you smell, whether you iron your shirts, etc etc and etc. They all contribute to a picture of a person before we receive more information to inform. Why are biases so problematic? I can see why Racial bias is problematic, but to not be able to act using population tendencies as a guide severely impairs our judgement to make the right decision. Biases have a dirty rep, but they are the tools we use to navigate the world.
Perhaps we can say for certain that a racial bias is at play, but how can we quantify its effect on the decision to stop? You seem to suggest that if a young white person is driving an expensive car with tinted windows, slowing down then speeding off, in an area that they're looking for violent criminals and drugs, then snaking through back-roads with the police behind them, that they wouldn't be stopped. This is Bianca's premise. They only stopped us because we're black, it's racial profiling.
Even if we accept all of your 3 observations above without question, it still does not amount to evidence that the police were wrong to ask them to stop in this individual case.
It just shows how hard it is for police to deal with black people now, if they're going to be accused of racism for every stop that doesn't find what they're looking for. Maybe they shouldn't stop anyone at all so as not to offend. Maybe just stop exclusively white people for a bit, to even up the numbers.
Bianca was so quick to take up all the radio and TV interviews that she hasn't quite got her story straight and contradicts herself across them. She wants to have the Chief of the Met resign, so I'd expect her to be pretty sure that this is what she's saying it is.
the people being stopped for the 10th and 20th time for being black and in possession of a nice car were being "drama queens".
This wasn't the reason for the stop. This is the whole point of the conversation. How is it possible, on the facts of this individual stop to prove that being black is the reason for the stop. There are other reasons that are pertinent that have been cited many times. Being stopped incorrectly 9 times does not mean the 10th time is also incorrect. It also doesn't mean that if nothing is found as a result of the stop that the stop itself was incorrect.
Regarding the Ely stop. You seem to be missing the point so I will spell it out for you. Why is it ok to associate black people with drug crime? Are white people not involved in drug dealing?
It's comments like these that lead me to believe you're arguing in bad faith and deliberately trying to distort what has been said. It is not ok to simply associate black people with drug crime. White people are also involved in drug dealing. In this particular case the officer suggests that the intel is that the gangs they are looking for have this characteristic. In my view, it is ok to search for someone based on the characteristics that they match, hence my examples which I do not doubt for one second you understand. Seems like you don't want to offend black people that aren't involved and so would be quite happy to interview white people to see if they are part of the black gang.
1. There have been thorough and detailed reports that have concluded there is racial bias in the criminal justice system and the phrase "Institutional Racism" has been conveyed upon the Police.
2. Recent Government statistics seem to support that black people are disproportionately targeted for stop and search and that they are proportionately stopping innocent black people much more often than they stop innocent white people.
Yes, statistics can be problematic and not reveal the full story immediately without some work, but ok, let's just assume this is true and reveals a problem.
3. I have suggested that while these Police actions are in the majority probably not being made by overtly racist people, there is likely to be a racial bias in place.
Racial bias is just one bias, there are biases to do with affluence, driving behaviour, your choice of car, your area, your age, your gender, whether you have a calm/nervous disposition, whether you're a loud talker, whether you smell, whether you iron your shirts, etc etc and etc. They all contribute to a picture of a person before we receive more information to inform. Why are biases so problematic? I can see why Racial bias is problematic, but to not be able to act using population tendencies as a guide severely impairs our judgement to make the right decision. Biases have a dirty rep, but they are the tools we use to navigate the world.
Perhaps we can say for certain that a racial bias is at play, but how can we quantify its effect on the decision to stop? You seem to suggest that if a young white person is driving an expensive car with tinted windows, slowing down then speeding off, in an area that they're looking for violent criminals and drugs, then snaking through back-roads with the police behind them, that they wouldn't be stopped. This is Bianca's premise. They only stopped us because we're black, it's racial profiling.
Even if we accept all of your 3 observations above without question, it still does not amount to evidence that the police were wrong to ask them to stop in this individual case.
It just shows how hard it is for police to deal with black people now, if they're going to be accused of racism for every stop that doesn't find what they're looking for. Maybe they shouldn't stop anyone at all so as not to offend. Maybe just stop exclusively white people for a bit, to even up the numbers.
Bianca was so quick to take up all the radio and TV interviews that she hasn't quite got her story straight and contradicts herself across them. She wants to have the Chief of the Met resign, so I'd expect her to be pretty sure that this is what she's saying it is.
I can also see that two police officers that have just finished their night shift, after conducting 6 stop and searches, thinking that had acted fairly as 3 of them were of white people, not realising that they should have taken into account population percentages.
The Sky commentator described the police actions as clumsy.
I think they bungled it, and left themselves open to criticism.
However, their response to the police was wrong, and their actions leading up to the stop were stupid.
I
I’m not surprised either, we’ve all agreed that their approach was heavy handed following the stop.
They’ve apologised for the distress caused, not for the fact they asked them to stop in the first place. They reiterate that there was reason to ask the car to stop which did not include the occupants being black or driving a black car.
Would have been better for the police to have apologised but also take the opportunity to tell others that the best way to minimise distress and to not escalate a situation would be to immediately comply and follow officers instructions politely and calmly. Stopping when safe to do so does not extend to the fact that may you only feel safe in a particular place and can continue your journey!
@bbMike Why are you so keen to assert that the 1st 2 examples of the police stopping black drivers were not down to racial profiling if by your own admission in comments to the 3rd example racial profiling is a good thing?
Because in the first 2 examples they are just looking for crime and in the 3rd example they are looking specifically for crime that has been reported to have been committed by a particular racial group.
I don’t believe you don’t understand this.
If a witness says it was a woman in a t-shirt, do you stop a man in a hoodie? If the investigation is on crime committed by black gangs crossing area lines why would they not stop someone that they can in all probability deduce fits the profile? Who should they stop instead?
Are you interested in effective policing?
Is the objection that sometimes stops happen to innocent people and they are offended by it? How do you stop that happening? Pretty sure it’s not by going on an implicit bias course.
Stateless review – harrowing, hypnotic refugee drama
This deft Australian series, partly based on real events, interrogates the country’s flawed detention centres through the stories of four contrasting characters
Because in the first 2 examples they are just looking for crime and in the 3rd example they are looking specifically for crime that has been reported to have been committed by a particular racial group.
Are they though? They could have been racially profiling in the first 2.
Something I hadn't picked up on until the interview Haysie posted was that the first encounter with the TSG van was when they were driving in opposite directions so the police were well aware of the colour of the driver. The mercedes turned right and the TSG van immediately turned left and then caught up with the mercedes. There are 2 different accounts as to how erratic the driving was from that point. Maybe the TSG van camera footage will eventually be released to clear that point up.
What crime were they suspected of? At first they said were they looking for weapons and that was the reason for the stop. They then changed tack to mention the driver smelling of cannabis. Unlikely for a professional athlete couple as Nick Ferrari pointed out.
In the Ryan Colaco case the suspicion was for drugs, after the stop and while he was in the car one officer claimed to have witnessed the driver stuffing items in his waist band. Nothing was found. Like I have said before being black in possession of a nice car should not equate to an assumption of dealing drugs. Were there any other factors involved in the stop other than the car and the colour of the driver? I haven't seen any.
If a witness says it was a woman in a t-shirt, do you stop a man in a hoodie? If the investigation is on crime committed by black gangs crossing area lines why would they not stop someone that they can in all probability deduce fits the profile? Who should they stop instead?
Bit of a leap with the woman/man t-shirt/hoodie? If you acting on 1 specific crime with an eye witness description that is a world away from the type of policing we are discussing.
Of the 3 incidents I have previously said that the relative politeness of the officer, the fact he didn't ask the driver to get of the car makes it the lesser of the 3 in terms of police action. Let's assume there was a problem with county lines drug dealing in the area and in that particular area it was a black gang involved. I would expect a CID operation looking for intelligence to be the lead modus operandi not asking traffic to randomly stop any black people.
Yes. I do not think it is effective policing to be apparently so bad at predicting which black people are actually criminals. Police seem to have a much better strike rate with white criminals. Are white criminals more stupid than black criminals and give themselves away? Or possibly are police officers more selective and give themselves more to go on before stopping white people.
Is the objection that sometimes stops happen to innocent people and they are offended by it? How do you stop that happening? Pretty sure it’s not by going on an implicit bias course.
No my objection as per my above answer that it is bad policing. Hopefully we can all agree that policing is a difficult job and that resources have been cut. Police could help themselves, save money, save time by not making so many bad stops.
Maybe they could even improve relations and earn the trust of a section of the community that feels unfairly treated and that could in turn lead to better intelligence.
Because in the first 2 examples they are just looking for crime and in the 3rd example they are looking specifically for crime that has been reported to have been committed by a particular racial group.
Are they though? They could have been racially profiling in the first 2.
Something I hadn't picked up on until the interview Haysie posted was that the first encounter with the TSG van was when they were driving in opposite directions so the police were well aware of the colour of the driver. The mercedes turned right and the TSG van immediately turned left and then caught up with the mercedes. There are 2 different accounts as to how erratic the driving was from that point. Maybe the TSG van camera footage will eventually be released to clear that point up.
What crime were they suspected of? At first they said were they looking for weapons and that was the reason for the stop. They then changed tack to mention the driver smelling of cannabis. Unlikely for a professional athlete couple as Nick Ferrari pointed out.
In the Ryan Colaco case the suspicion was for drugs, after the stop and while he was in the car one officer claimed to have witnessed the driver stuffing items in his waist band. Nothing was found. Like I have said before being black in possession of a nice car should not equate to an assumption of dealing drugs. Were there any other factors involved in the stop other than the car and the colour of the driver? I haven't seen any.
If a witness says it was a woman in a t-shirt, do you stop a man in a hoodie? If the investigation is on crime committed by black gangs crossing area lines why would they not stop someone that they can in all probability deduce fits the profile? Who should they stop instead?
Bit of a leap with the woman/man t-shirt/hoodie? If you acting on 1 specific crime with an eye witness description that is a world away from the type of policing we are discussing.
Of the 3 incidents I have previously said that the relative politeness of the officer, the fact he didn't ask the driver to get of the car makes it the lesser of the 3 in terms of police action. Let's assume there was a problem with county lines drug dealing in the area and in that particular area it was a black gang involved. I would expect a CID operation looking for intelligence to be the lead modus operandi not asking traffic to randomly stop any black people.
Yes. I do not think it is effective policing to be apparently so bad at predicting which black people are actually criminals. Police seem to have a much better strike rate with white criminals. Are white criminals more stupid than black criminals and give themselves away? Or possibly are police officers more selective and give themselves more to go on before stopping white people.
Is the objection that sometimes stops happen to innocent people and they are offended by it? How do you stop that happening? Pretty sure it’s not by going on an implicit bias course.
No my objection as per my above answer that it is bad policing. Hopefully we can all agree that policing is a difficult job and that resources have been cut. Police could help themselves, save money, save time by not making so many bad stops.
Maybe they could even improve relations and earn the trust of a section of the community that feels unfairly treated and that could in turn lead to better intelligence.
I am off to bed, so just quickly.
If you consider the stats you posted on stop and searches actually carried out.
There were a total of 375,000.
Of these 187,000 were of white people, and 70,000 of black people.
So white people accounted for almost bang on 50%, and black people less than 20%.
I think that population percentages matter little to front line police officers going about their duty.
You may consider the other stats which take into account the population percentages, as categorical proof of racism.
Although I think that in some cases we default to racism if we are unable to come up with an alternative explanation.
How would you explain Merseyside?
London had the highest stop and search rates for all ethnic groups apart from Black (Dorset) and White (Merseyside)
So do you think the Police are beyond reproach, that there is no evidence of racial bias in their use of stop and search?
The ratio of stops by racial group 4 in 1000 white people and 38 in 1000 people does not seem imbalanced to you?
According to the PACE Codes of Practice, the decision to stop and search must be based on objective information relating to a specific individual suspected of involvement in a specific offence at a specific time. In other words, that decision cannot be based on a generalised belief that a particular group of people are more likely to be involved in crime.
This is an older report so I won't quote the statistics. The disproportionality appears to have grown in the intervening time which is worrying.
However the case studies in Cleveland and Staffordhire are particularly interesting where action was taken to reduce the amount of stop and search and change the culture and engage with ethnic communities with positive results.
There is no evidence to support a higher crime rate in black people than white people, yet you seem to support the targeting of black people as being more likely to be involved in crime?
"In the area of stop and search, there is good evidence that stereotyping – making an automatic assumption that individuals from particular groups are more likely to be involved in crime – affects police officers’ decision-making. Police officers repeatedly explain to researchers that they stop black people because ‘nine times out of 10 they would have drugs’ or ‘whenever a robbery comes in… 90 per cent you’ll be thinking it’s a black man’. In one Home Office study, a constable argued that, ‘if 99 per cent of people committing robberies are black – and in an area like this they are – then you would expect to find 99 per cent of the stops/searches to be of black people’.
Research evidence shows that police officers routinely use skin colour as a criterion for stop and search based on stereotyping and over-generalisations about the involvement of different ethnic groups in crime. Stereotypes shape the formation of suspicion and affect police officers’ decision-making."
So do you think the Police are beyond reproach, that there is no evidence of racial bias in their use of stop and search?
No I don't.
The ratio of stops by racial group 4 in 1000 white people and 38 in 1000 people does not seem imbalanced to you?
Yes I do, but the actual figures paint a different picture, and I wonder how relevant the population percentages are.
According to the PACE Codes of Practice, the decision to stop and search must be based on objective information relating to a specific individual suspected of involvement in a specific offence at a specific time. In other words, that decision cannot be based on a generalised belief that a particular group of people are more likely to be involved in crime.
This is an older report so I won't quote the statistics. The disproportionality appears to have grown in the intervening time which is worrying.
However the case studies in Cleveland and Staffordhire are particularly interesting where action was taken to reduce the amount of stop and search and change the culture and engage with ethnic communities with positive results.
There is no evidence to support a higher crime rate in black people than white people, yet you seem to support the targeting of black people as being more likely to be involved in crime?
I don't support the targeting of black people.
"In the area of stop and search, there is good evidence that stereotyping – making an automatic assumption that individuals from particular groups are more likely to be involved in crime – affects police officers’ decision-making. Police officers repeatedly explain to researchers that they stop black people because ‘nine times out of 10 they would have drugs’ or ‘whenever a robbery comes in… 90 per cent you’ll be thinking it’s a black man’. In one Home Office study, a constable argued that, ‘if 99 per cent of people committing robberies are black – and in an area like this they are – then you would expect to find 99 per cent of the stops/searches to be of black people’.
Research evidence shows that police officers routinely use skin colour as a criterion for stop and search based on stereotyping and over-generalisations about the involvement of different ethnic groups in crime. Stereotypes shape the formation of suspicion and affect police officers’ decision-making."
My issue was with relating the stats to population percentages.
As I said earlier, I wonder how relevant this is.
In many rural areas stop and searches will be few and far between, highly populated by white people, but included in the population totals.
If you were compiling daytime stop and search stats for any particular area, should you deduct those at work, on holiday, or sick, and therefore weren't available for a stop and search.
If you were compiling figures for night time stop and searches, should you deduct the very old, as they are unlikely to be out and about.
Stopping and searching has always been a controversial issue, and likely to remain a battle that the police will never win.
What do Merseyside do differently?
I do accept that there is racism everywhere, including in the police force.
I am sure that some of the issues you have raised could be addressed by training/re-training, but this would be a long term project.
Someone was on this thread earlier pointing to the fact that we have never had a black PM, as proof of our racism. Despite the fact that three of the four Great Offices of State are filled by people from ethnic minorities.
They also pointed to the lack of black PL managers being further evidence. I don't buy this either. Yet the bare stats may be considered by many as categorical proof.
We seem to be taking more turns here than Bianca Williams trying to avoid traffic lights to get to a lunch appointment on time.
I will try to summarise.
There is much I agree with you on @Phantom66. In particular that the police have a difficult job, that they haven't handled these cases well post-stop, and that they should be looking to build trust among the communities they serve.
But I also feel that the couple could have acted differently and got a different outcome, namely pulling over when asked, and politely and calmly complying. Shouting 'we haven't done anything' isn't how to behave in this situation.
I disagree there is evidence of racial profiling in the case of deciding to stop Williams and partner.
How do you prove that racial profiling did not take place when you stop a black person? Well, you could concentrate on the other contributing factors that led to the stop.
They clearly object to being stopped, she starts her Tweet with "They say the UK isn't racist". Throwing up racism claims like this onto the internet and all over the news, and saying you want to 'go down the legal route' because of it, further undermines the trust that we agree the police should be looking to build (as of course, does their handling of it post-stop).
There are no doubt problems here. Racist cops being one of them I'd need more evidence for. The evidence that race played a part here is simply that this is a black couple and the police force have had other problems with race.
What's going to happen if the independent investigation concludes this wasn't racism/racial profiling? No doubt there will be outcries that this proves that the system is corrupt. This is the real problem, that the systems that we have to rely on to get justice are undermined by a mob who have already made their minds up.
If it's found there was racial issues at play here, then the police involved should get what they deserve. But what they deserve right now is for people to look critically at the facts of the individual case.
On stop-and-search more generally, what would be an acceptable level of stops of innocent people to catch one criminal? Yes you want to minimise unnecessary stops to avoid people being put out, and to save police time etc. Perhaps stop-and-search is so ineffective and distressing to the innocent that it's not worth pursuing. I especially understand the angst of people who are stopped repeatedly - perhaps because they're still travelling in that same car, at that same time of night through that area which is their routine etc - if it ticked the boxes before it will tick the boxes now. How do you get round that? Hold data on past incorrect stops so they can look up the number plate and see they'd questioned them before and were happy? Which innocent people would be happy for this information to be stored 'on their record'? Maybe have more bobbies-on-the-beat so they actually get to know people (difficult in largely populated areas though).
Who'd want to be an officer trying to uphold the law under such scrutiny?
My issue was with relating the stats to population percentages.
As I said earlier, I wonder how relevant this is.
In many rural areas stop and searches will be few and far between, highly populated by white people, but included in the population totals.
I think it is highly relevant to look at relative population stats as well as absolute numbers. Especially if you combine that with "excess stops" the number of stops where no further action is taken (arrest or charge).
Rural areas like Dorset perhaps? Where the black population is very low yet the relative stop rate for black people is the highest in the country. Proportionately it is shocking but the overall absolute numbers are small in the context of the UK.
If you were compiling daytime stop and search stats for any particular area, should you deduct those at work, on holiday, or sick, and therefore weren't available for a stop and search.
If you were compiling figures for night time stop and searches, should you deduct the very old, as they are unlikely to be out and about.
I would expect to see age based variations in the stats and for there to be a correlation between age and likelihood of being on the streets, carrying drugs and/or a weapon. A much stronger correlation than skin colour.
Stopping and searching has always been a controversial issue, and likely to remain a battle that the police will never win.
What do Merseyside do differently?
I do accept that there is racism everywhere, including in the police force.
I am sure that some of the issues you have raised could be addressed by training/re-training, but this would be a long term project.
I think even good training would on its own only scratch the surface. It has to be a top down culture change. Cleveland and Staffordshire seemed to manage it and improved outcomes. A pilot study in London did the same, but for some reason these initiatives seem to fizzle out rather than learned from and rolled out effectively across the country.
I think seeing stop and search as a battle with the police losing is counterproductive. Some areas have proved it is much better achieved by working with the communities who feel unfairly targeted.
In Merseyside I believe that the organised crime tends to be dominated by white gangs coupled with a relatively low black population for an urban environment.
It seems we actually agree on alot of things. My initial involvement in this thread came from the reactions of people (including you) who appeared to criticise the actions of the black people being stopped and searched more than those of the police officers stopping them.
I took a conscious decision to speak out more on such issues. Partly in remembrance of my elder son who was a committed humanitarian and partly in response to #blacklivesmatter and a commentary that it is no longer enough just to not be racist and that it is important to speak out about racism and condemn racist behaviour so that condemnation not acceptance becomes the norm and racist views get marginalised.
We seem to be taking more turns here than Bianca Williams trying to avoid traffic lights to get to a lunch appointment on time.
I will try to summarise.
There is much I agree with you on @Phantom66. In particular that the police have a difficult job, that they haven't handled these cases well post-stop, and that they should be looking to build trust among the communities they serve.
But I also feel that the couple could have acted differently and got a different outcome, namely pulling over when asked, and politely and calmly complying. Shouting 'we haven't done anything' isn't how to behave in this situation.
I disagree there is evidence of racial profiling in the case of deciding to stop Williams and partner.
How do you prove that racial profiling did not take place when you stop a black person? Well, you could concentrate on the other contributing factors that led to the stop.
They clearly object to being stopped, she starts her Tweet with "They say the UK isn't racist". Throwing up racism claims like this onto the internet and all over the news, and saying you want to 'go down the legal route' because of it, further undermines the trust that we agree the police should be looking to build (as of course, does their handling of it post-stop).
There are no doubt problems here. Racist cops being one of them I'd need more evidence for. The evidence that race played a part here is simply that this is a black couple and the police force have had other problems with race.
What's going to happen if the independent investigation concludes this wasn't racism/racial profiling? No doubt there will be outcries that this proves that the system is corrupt. This is the real problem, that the systems that we have to rely on to get justice are undermined by a mob who have already made their minds up.
If it's found there was racial issues at play here, then the police involved should get what they deserve. But what they deserve right now is for people to look critically at the facts of the individual case.
On stop-and-search more generally, what would be an acceptable level of stops of innocent people to catch one criminal? Yes you want to minimise unnecessary stops to avoid people being put out, and to save police time etc. Perhaps stop-and-search is so ineffective and distressing to the innocent that it's not worth pursuing. I especially understand the angst of people who are stopped repeatedly - perhaps because they're still travelling in that same car, at that same time of night through that area which is their routine etc - if it ticked the boxes before it will tick the boxes now. How do you get round that? Hold data on past incorrect stops so they can look up the number plate and see they'd questioned them before and were happy? Which innocent people would be happy for this information to be stored 'on their record'? Maybe have more bobbies-on-the-beat so they actually get to know people (difficult in largely populated areas though).
Who'd want to be an officer trying to uphold the law under such scrutiny?
I'll try to be brief and in doing so I probably won't answer all of your points directly.
I can't prove racial profiling in the cases of Bianca Williams or Ryan Colaco any more than you can disprove it. Hopefully with full evidence of vehicle and bodycam footage before and during the stop an independent review will judge that.
Do you think if a white man in a suit had been driving the same car at the same time they would have been stopped?
In the Bianca Williams case it was a section 60 stop for weapons by a TSG patrolling the area looking for people to stop due to incidents of knife crime.
There was no prior intelligence related to that car or the driver linking them to organised crime. They were driving towards their own home. They were even stopped in their own street.
Even if it was fair and reasonable to stop the vehicle, why didn't the police follow their own guidelines in how they approached the couple and how they extracted them from the vehicle, handcuffed them and separated them from their baby.
Blaming the driver and passenger here is senseless. If you are going about your daily business legally and get treated like that then you have a right to complain. Even the Police agree with that as they have apologised.
P.S you never answered how I was trolling you and I am also wondering where my "bad faith" is?
Comments
I didn't post the 1st 2 videos of officers stopping black drivers. I reacted to comments that seemed to be assuming that the Police were in the right for both stops. Nothing wrong, the people being stopped for the 10th and 20th time for being black and in possession of a nice car were being "drama queens".
Regarding the Ely stop. You seem to be missing the point so I will spell it out for you. Why is it ok to associate black people with drug crime? Are white people not involved in drug dealing?
The points that I have been making are.
1. There have been thorough and detailed reports that have concluded there is racial bias in the criminal justice system and the phrase "Institutional Racism" has been conveyed upon the Police.
2. Recent Government statistics seem to support that black people are disproportionately targeted for stop and search and that they are proportionately stopping innocent black people much more often than they stop innocent white people.
3. I have suggested that while these Police actions are in the majority probably not being made by overtly racist people, there is likely to be a racial bias in place.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53307561
@bbmike @HAYSIE
I am surprised you thought her explanation was clear.
Nick Ferrari struggled with it on times.
I didn't post this originally because of the undecided way in which she described their trip.
Even though they were aware that the police were following them, they cunningly decide to avoid a 15 minute wait (which during the course of her explanation is immediately reduced to 10 mins, and finally reduced to 5 mins), at a traffic light by going off on an adventure through some side streets, before navigating back on to the main road that they were on in the first place, while the police continued to follow.
Seemingly oblivious of how suspicious this may look.
They then refuse to stop when asked to do so by the police.
They decided not to stop as it was not safe to stop with a baby in the car despite the fact that a police van would be parked behind them.
They also thought it preferable to stop near their home, because they felt safer because their neighbours were there, and because they had another car with the same or similar number plate, it would prove that the car they were in wasn't stolen, and that they weren't making up an address.
The fact that it was a longer road also came into the equation.
So by refusing to stop they were just being helpful.
This is despite the fact that I would guess that the police would have been aware of the name and address of the registered owner of the car was by this stage.
She seemed to think that the fact that they were running late, had a lunch reservation, a baby to look after, and had to drop the baby at the babysitters, were an integral part of the story.
Why is she unable to just say no?
Does she think that saying nononononononononono, is more convincing?
They were stopped because her car is all black, and her partner was a black man?
Perhaps we can say for certain that a racial bias is at play, but how can we quantify its effect on the decision to stop? You seem to suggest that if a young white person is driving an expensive car with tinted windows, slowing down then speeding off, in an area that they're looking for violent criminals and drugs, then snaking through back-roads with the police behind them, that they wouldn't be stopped. This is Bianca's premise. They only stopped us because we're black, it's racial profiling.
Even if we accept all of your 3 observations above without question, it still does not amount to evidence that the police were wrong to ask them to stop in this individual case.
It just shows how hard it is for police to deal with black people now, if they're going to be accused of racism for every stop that doesn't find what they're looking for. Maybe they shouldn't stop anyone at all so as not to offend. Maybe just stop exclusively white people for a bit, to even up the numbers.
Bianca was so quick to take up all the radio and TV interviews that she hasn't quite got her story straight and contradicts herself across them. She wants to have the Chief of the Met resign, so I'd expect her to be pretty sure that this is what she's saying it is.
The Sky commentator described the police actions as clumsy.
I think they bungled it, and left themselves open to criticism.
However, their response to the police was wrong, and their actions leading up to the stop were stupid.
I
They’ve apologised for the distress caused, not for the fact they asked them to stop in the first place. They reiterate that there was reason to ask the car to stop which did not include the occupants being black or driving a black car.
Would have been better for the police to have apologised but also take the opportunity to tell others that the best way to minimise distress and to not escalate a situation would be to immediately comply and follow officers instructions politely and calmly. Stopping when safe to do so does not extend to the fact that may you only feel safe in a particular place and can continue your journey!
I don’t believe you don’t understand this.
If a witness says it was a woman in a t-shirt, do you stop a man in a hoodie? If the investigation is on crime committed by black gangs crossing area lines why would they not stop someone that they can in all probability deduce fits the profile? Who should they stop instead?
Are you interested in effective policing?
Is the objection that sometimes stops happen to innocent people and they are offended by it? How do you stop that happening? Pretty sure it’s not by going on an implicit bias course.
This deft Australian series, partly based on real events, interrogates the country’s flawed detention centres through the stories of four contrasting characters
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jul/08/stateless-review-harrowing-hypnotic-refugee-drama
Something I hadn't picked up on until the interview Haysie posted was that the first encounter with the TSG van was when they were driving in opposite directions so the police were well aware of the colour of the driver. The mercedes turned right and the TSG van immediately turned left and then caught up with the mercedes. There are 2 different accounts as to how erratic the driving was from that point. Maybe the TSG van camera footage will eventually be released to clear that point up.
What crime were they suspected of? At first they said were they looking for weapons and that was the reason for the stop. They then changed tack to mention the driver smelling of cannabis. Unlikely for a professional athlete couple as Nick Ferrari pointed out.
In the Ryan Colaco case the suspicion was for drugs, after the stop and while he was in the car one officer claimed to have witnessed the driver stuffing items in his waist band. Nothing was found. Like I have said before being black in possession of a nice car should not equate to an assumption of dealing drugs. Were there any other factors involved in the stop other than the car and the colour of the driver? I haven't seen any.
Bit of a leap with the woman/man t-shirt/hoodie? If you acting on 1 specific crime with an eye witness description that is a world away from the type of policing we are discussing.
Of the 3 incidents I have previously said that the relative politeness of the officer, the fact he didn't ask the driver to get of the car makes it the lesser of the 3 in terms of police action. Let's assume there was a problem with county lines drug dealing in the area and in that particular area it was a black gang involved. I would expect a CID operation looking for intelligence to be the lead modus operandi not asking traffic to randomly stop any black people. Yes. I do not think it is effective policing to be apparently so bad at predicting which black people are actually criminals. Police seem to have a much better strike rate with white criminals. Are white criminals more stupid than black criminals and give themselves away? Or possibly are police officers more selective and give themselves more to go on before stopping white people. No my objection as per my above answer that it is bad policing. Hopefully we can all agree that policing is a difficult job and that resources have been cut. Police could help themselves, save money, save time by not making so many bad stops.
Maybe they could even improve relations and earn the trust of a section of the community that feels unfairly treated and that could in turn lead to better intelligence.
If you consider the stats you posted on stop and searches actually carried out.
There were a total of 375,000.
Of these 187,000 were of white people, and 70,000 of black people.
So white people accounted for almost bang on 50%, and black people less than 20%.
I think that population percentages matter little to front line police officers going about their duty.
You may consider the other stats which take into account the population percentages, as categorical proof of racism.
Although I think that in some cases we default to racism if we are unable to come up with an alternative explanation.
How would you explain Merseyside?
London had the highest stop and search rates for all ethnic groups apart from Black (Dorset) and White (Merseyside)
So do you think the Police are beyond reproach, that there is no evidence of racial bias in their use of stop and search?
The ratio of stops by racial group 4 in 1000 white people and 38 in 1000 people does not seem imbalanced to you?
According to the PACE Codes of Practice, the decision to stop and search must be based on objective information relating to a specific individual suspected of involvement in
a specific offence at a specific time. In other words, that decision cannot be based on a generalised belief that a particular group of people are more likely to be involved in crime.
This is an older report so I won't quote the statistics. The disproportionality appears to have grown in the intervening time which is worrying.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/ehrc_stop_and_search_report.pdf
However the case studies in Cleveland and Staffordhire are particularly interesting where action was taken to reduce the amount of stop and search and change the culture and engage with ethnic communities with positive results.
There is no evidence to support a higher crime rate in black people than white people, yet you seem to support the targeting of black people as being more likely to be involved in crime?
"In the area of stop and search, there is good evidence that stereotyping – making an automatic assumption that individuals from particular groups are more likely to be involved in crime – affects police officers’ decision-making. Police officers repeatedly explain to researchers that they stop black people because ‘nine times out of 10 they would have drugs’ or ‘whenever a robbery comes in… 90 per cent you’ll be thinking it’s a black man’. In one Home Office study, a constable argued that, ‘if 99 per cent of people committing robberies are black – and in an area like this they are – then you would expect to find 99 per cent of the stops/searches to be of black people’.
Research evidence shows that police officers routinely use skin colour as a criterion for stop and search based on stereotyping and over-generalisations about the involvement of different ethnic groups in crime. Stereotypes shape the formation of suspicion and affect police officers’ decision-making."
My issue was with relating the stats to population percentages.
As I said earlier, I wonder how relevant this is.
In many rural areas stop and searches will be few and far between, highly populated by white people, but included in the population totals.
If you were compiling daytime stop and search stats for any particular area, should you deduct those at work, on holiday, or sick, and therefore weren't available for a stop and search.
If you were compiling figures for night time stop and searches, should you deduct the very old, as they are unlikely to be out and about.
Stopping and searching has always been a controversial issue, and likely to remain a battle that the police will never win.
What do Merseyside do differently?
I do accept that there is racism everywhere, including in the police force.
I am sure that some of the issues you have raised could be addressed by training/re-training, but this would be a long term project.
Someone was on this thread earlier pointing to the fact that we have never had a black PM, as proof of our racism. Despite the fact that three of the four Great Offices of State are filled by people from ethnic minorities.
They also pointed to the lack of black PL managers being further evidence. I don't buy this either. Yet the bare stats may be considered by many as categorical proof.
I will try to summarise.
There is much I agree with you on @Phantom66. In particular that the police have a difficult job, that they haven't handled these cases well post-stop, and that they should be looking to build trust among the communities they serve.
But I also feel that the couple could have acted differently and got a different outcome, namely pulling over when asked, and politely and calmly complying. Shouting 'we haven't done anything' isn't how to behave in this situation.
I disagree there is evidence of racial profiling in the case of deciding to stop Williams and partner.
How do you prove that racial profiling did not take place when you stop a black person?
Well, you could concentrate on the other contributing factors that led to the stop.
They clearly object to being stopped, she starts her Tweet with "They say the UK isn't racist". Throwing up racism claims like this onto the internet and all over the news, and saying you want to 'go down the legal route' because of it, further undermines the trust that we agree the police should be looking to build (as of course, does their handling of it post-stop).
There are no doubt problems here. Racist cops being one of them I'd need more evidence for. The evidence that race played a part here is simply that this is a black couple and the police force have had other problems with race.
What's going to happen if the independent investigation concludes this wasn't racism/racial profiling? No doubt there will be outcries that this proves that the system is corrupt. This is the real problem, that the systems that we have to rely on to get justice are undermined by a mob who have already made their minds up.
If it's found there was racial issues at play here, then the police involved should get what they deserve. But what they deserve right now is for people to look critically at the facts of the individual case.
On stop-and-search more generally, what would be an acceptable level of stops of innocent people to catch one criminal? Yes you want to minimise unnecessary stops to avoid people being put out, and to save police time etc. Perhaps stop-and-search is so ineffective and distressing to the innocent that it's not worth pursuing. I especially understand the angst of people who are stopped repeatedly - perhaps because they're still travelling in that same car, at that same time of night through that area which is their routine etc - if it ticked the boxes before it will tick the boxes now. How do you get round that? Hold data on past incorrect stops so they can look up the number plate and see they'd questioned them before and were happy? Which innocent people would be happy for this information to be stored 'on their record'? Maybe have more bobbies-on-the-beat so they actually get to know people (difficult in largely populated areas though).
Who'd want to be an officer trying to uphold the law under such scrutiny?
Rural areas like Dorset perhaps? Where the black population is very low yet the relative stop rate for black people is the highest in the country. Proportionately it is shocking but the overall absolute numbers are small in the context of the UK. I would expect to see age based variations in the stats and for there to be a correlation between age and likelihood of being on the streets, carrying drugs and/or a weapon. A much stronger correlation than skin colour. I think even good training would on its own only scratch the surface. It has to be a top down culture change. Cleveland and Staffordshire seemed to manage it and improved outcomes. A pilot study in London did the same, but for some reason these initiatives seem to fizzle out rather than learned from and rolled out effectively across the country.
I think seeing stop and search as a battle with the police losing is counterproductive. Some areas have proved it is much better achieved by working with the communities who feel unfairly targeted.
In Merseyside I believe that the organised crime tends to be dominated by white gangs coupled with a relatively low black population for an urban environment.
It seems we actually agree on alot of things. My initial involvement in this thread came from the reactions of people (including you) who appeared to criticise the actions of the black people being stopped and searched more than those of the police officers stopping them.
I took a conscious decision to speak out more on such issues. Partly in remembrance of my elder son who was a committed humanitarian and partly in response to #blacklivesmatter and a commentary that it is no longer enough just to not be racist and that it is important to speak out about racism and condemn racist behaviour so that condemnation not acceptance becomes the norm and racist views get marginalised.
I can't prove racial profiling in the cases of Bianca Williams or Ryan Colaco any more than you can disprove it. Hopefully with full evidence of vehicle and bodycam footage before and during the stop an independent review will judge that.
Do you think if a white man in a suit had been driving the same car at the same time they would have been stopped?
In the Bianca Williams case it was a section 60 stop for weapons by a TSG patrolling the area looking for people to stop due to incidents of knife crime.
There was no prior intelligence related to that car or the driver linking them to organised crime. They were driving towards their own home. They were even stopped in their own street.
Even if it was fair and reasonable to stop the vehicle, why didn't the police follow their own guidelines in how they approached the couple and how they extracted them from the vehicle, handcuffed them and separated them from their baby.
Blaming the driver and passenger here is senseless. If you are going about your daily business legally and get treated like that then you have a right to complain. Even the Police agree with that as they have apologised.
P.S you never answered how I was trolling you and I am also wondering where my "bad faith" is?