- 17,076
- United Kingdom
Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,233 comments
- 585,050 views
In the first instance, you thought it worth mentioning that the people you were talking about where black. This was so important you skipped over all other details regarding them personally. This strikes me as a possible indicator that you have issues with race.
The second instance you seemed to use made up news channels/programs/whatever using stereotypes, which strikes me as you having issues with xenophobia.
Both of these things only make any arguments you make weaker. So the need to post them seem to stem from problems you have, rather than anything to do with trying to reinforce your points... what ever those are.
Hope that clears it up for you
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Deep breath......
Carrying a firearm is not the sole definition of armed. You seem to wish to perpetuate some idea of bandy-legged Mary Poppins-esque Peelers strolling casually around asking (arskin') "What's all this then?".
Are you.... are you.... Dick van Dyke?! I suspect that says a lot about your argument and your expertise in the subject of Things British.
No but it seems that you're reading the facts therein incorrectly. You claim that there has been a "killing spree" (later retracted to be a rise in knife killings) and support it with a source that says they haven't.
Hmmm, I'm not sure which bits of your argument I missed.
Who are you saying is making up imaginary states? The studies? The police? Me?
Impossible not to finish reading that in Borat accenting. Why do you want Taser stats? Here are some, hopefully sufficient.
I agreed with the first part, you've added the emboldened part of your own accord.
The 'Ferguson Effect' article describes a policeman as being charged with murder after needlessly shooting a suspect, it doesn't say that patrols no longer go to some areas as you asserted. The San Diego Tribune article is US-only.
So if you weren't in them what was the point of mentioning a few visits to London? You left the obvious to be inferred. How are you aware of the 'crap' areas in that case?
See the bolded section above.
Carrying a firearm is not the sole definition of armed. You seem to wish to perpetuate some idea of bandy-legged Mary Poppins-esque Peelers strolling casually around asking (arskin') "What's all this then?".
Are you.... are you.... Dick van Dyke?! I suspect that says a lot about your argument and your expertise in the subject of Things British.
No but it seems that you're reading the facts therein incorrectly. You claim that there has been a "killing spree" (later retracted to be a rise in knife killings) and support it with a source that says they haven't.
Hmmm, I'm not sure which bits of your argument I missed.
Who are you saying is making up imaginary states? The studies? The police? Me?
Impossible not to finish reading that in Borat accenting. Why do you want Taser stats? Here are some, hopefully sufficient.
I agreed with the first part, you've added the emboldened part of your own accord.
The 'Ferguson Effect' article describes a policeman as being charged with murder after needlessly shooting a suspect, it doesn't say that patrols no longer go to some areas as you asserted. The San Diego Tribune article is US-only.
So if you weren't in them what was the point of mentioning a few visits to London? You left the obvious to be inferred. How are you aware of the 'crap' areas in that case?
See the bolded section above.
AbeFroman75
(Banned)
- 201
- United States
- BaysideTigers63
Ok PCPD, I understand you're projecting your own bigotry and xenophobia but let's make something clear.
Calling a black person black does not a racist make. Them being black was a considerable part of those stories, if you would like to read them go right ahead.
If mentioning "tea and crumpets and breakfast TV" is xenophobic that's a stretch even for the Berkeley crowd.
Feel and think what you want. I'm tolerant of your view.
@TenEightyOne You're just intentionally trying to be obtuse at this point right?
If you really need your hand held to walk you through everything then sorry no thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
What does this mean?
I’m from the Midlands?
Seems you didn’t understand what I put. I never said simply calling someone black makes you a racist, but it seemed to be the only notable thing worth mentioning... And, while not strictly xenophobic the idea that you’d think using stereotypes to belittle others kinda points to some issues you have (as it only hindered any point you were trying to make)... But, you call me bigoted and racist, which contradicts your ending sentence?
- 29,704
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Probably "Politically Correct Police Department."
He's referring to Berkeley, California--perhaps even specifically the University of California at Berkeley, which is generally considered to be left...or left of left by the right.
He's suggesting that you finding something offensive stems from your own hangups about race.
Like an open book, he is...
Oh ok, cheers for the help!
Is it a bad thing to be ‘political correct’?
To be politically correct is to not want to offend people, is that right? Is that a bad thing?
I guess it’s bad to be part of a police department though... but maybe that’s why we have police forces rather than departments?
- 29,704
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Like anything, political correctness can be taken too far. A lot of it boils down to common courtesy. The "Anti-PC Brigade" sure does like to latch onto the too far bits, though, and use them to invalidate the entire convention.
As for "department" vs. "force," it's all rather colloquial. "Force" here generally refers to the entirety ("The police force in America"), while "department" is subject to context, with it encompassing an entire municipality when referred to as "PD" or denoting a single hub serving an area (also referred to as "station" or "precinct").
- 13,850
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Really?
http://copcrisis.com
https://policeviolencereport.org/
And any number of other sites running off publically reported police data. Police killings are a big thing in the US, and so lots of people are collecting information.
I'd say a thousand+ people a year being killed by police is pretty substantial. I don't think it's particularly lame to want to talk about something that kills a thousand people a year, especially when it's nominally a service to protect the public.
Again, please educate yourself just a little about the situation between the police and the public in your country. Just because you're a white man living in a good area does not mean that everything is hunky dory country-wide. There are serious systemic problems, some of which lead to rates of death by police that are orders of magnitude above where they probably should be.
There are less concrete stats on police killings in the UK and Canada (probably due to the rates not being particularly high), but I suggest you look at them for comparison. They're not even in the same ballpark, no matter what you do to the statistics.
AbeFroman75
(Banned)
- 201
- United States
- BaysideTigers63
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/
< 1000. Per year for 2017, 2016, 2015.
From a numbers perspective no they are not. Out of the millions of police contacts per year, 68 deaths involved were people that were unarmed. 68, out of a population of 330ish million. Of those 68, 20 were black. Twenty. Out of 40+ million blacks. This is not a problem you make it out to be.
You telling me to educate myself and bring my race into this, don't. The myth that you and others like BLM are perpetuating not only puts the lives of cops at risk but also the lives of young black men. Because all they hear is that they're a target, they're only to be hunted and everybody is against them. Flat out it is dangerous. Period.
Edit1: For christ sake the story I posted earlier with the black woman that made the disgusting false claim she was "raped" by a racist cop, he and his family received multiple death threats, especially when his home address was published by members of BLM. And that is a direct result of people like you perpetuating this pile of trash.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/fryer_police_aer.pdf
Edit2: Let me add an addendum here. Is this study the end all be all, no. Would it benefit from more data, absolutely. Which is why I am very happy that more and more departments are issued body cams and I hope the practice becomes permanent and universal. Why? So that the cops that do make a mistake are rightfully brought to justice, and the ones that acted appropriately are vindicated.
There are many factors that play into this, one significant one is a failed welfare system that incentivized the decimation of the nuclear family for the black community via the War on Poverty. Well meaning it may have been but it really screwed things up.
I looked at those sources and one look at the "about us" section tells me they're agenda driven. I will trust the WaPo source until a better one comes by. You can cherry pick yours, I'll cherry pick mine.
You can try to sensationalize all you want, but facts and numbers don't lie. 20 out of 40+ million is not a problem. 980 something out of over a million police contacts is not a crisis. 68 unarmed out of over a million police contacts is not a crisis. If you feel it is. Go right ahead.
Last edited:
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,708
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
Your source is off. 1,147 people were killed by police in 2017. Of those, 25% were black. That's ~287 people in a minority that comprises 13% of the United States.
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org
If you're bringing statistics into this, have the full picture instead of cherrypicking. And more importantly, stop trying to downplay America's issues.
Edit: And of course, this thread veered straight off the original topic. Can we get back on track and talk about Britain in the Britain thread?
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
I won't go too much into the @AbeFroman75 argument, but it is ironic that you point out that people in the UK don't have a real understanding of police in America whilst seemingly lacking an understanding of police in the UK yourself. You're right that knife crime is on the rise but at the same time as @TenEightyOne pointed out knife killings are going down. So either the "unarmed" police are doing a better job than they were before at preventing murders with knives (or in general), doctors are getting better at keeping people alive who have been stabbed, or the increase in knife crime is due to crimes that are unlikely to result in the death of the victim, or a combination of the three (feel free to point out other scenarios).
Overall I don't really understand your reasoning, our "unarmed" police force seem to do just as good as if not better job at preventing violent crime as the "armed" American police force so how you can think our police are "essentially useless" is beyond me.
As for American police, as @Imari says you would need to compare statistics on wrongful killings by police in different countries to see the extent of the problem if there is one (I haven't seen those stats so no idea myself although it does seem to be a problem), but I agree that the focus on it being a race issue is misleading at best or simply wrong because when you take into account the violent crime rate of black people, and the % of unarmed black and white people there doesn't seem to be an issue with race. There's plenty of examples of people being wrongfully shot by police in situations that had nothing to do with race so I agree that the nonsense spread by the likes of BLM is dangerous and doesn't help black people. That doesn't however mean there isn't a problem in America with police wrongfully killing people.
Political correctness goes too far when you refrain from expressing opinions or even stating facts when they're appropriate just in case they might offend someone.
Overall I don't really understand your reasoning, our "unarmed" police force seem to do just as good as if not better job at preventing violent crime as the "armed" American police force so how you can think our police are "essentially useless" is beyond me.
As for American police, as @Imari says you would need to compare statistics on wrongful killings by police in different countries to see the extent of the problem if there is one (I haven't seen those stats so no idea myself although it does seem to be a problem), but I agree that the focus on it being a race issue is misleading at best or simply wrong because when you take into account the violent crime rate of black people, and the % of unarmed black and white people there doesn't seem to be an issue with race. There's plenty of examples of people being wrongfully shot by police in situations that had nothing to do with race so I agree that the nonsense spread by the likes of BLM is dangerous and doesn't help black people. That doesn't however mean there isn't a problem in America with police wrongfully killing people.
Political correctness goes too far when you refrain from expressing opinions or even stating facts when they're appropriate just in case they might offend someone.
The old adage; if you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say it?
God what a nightmare world that sounds like!
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,396
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Now compare the percentages to the racial demographic breakdown for the US.
Notice anything different between the two?
No it's not, and you might be surprised to know that using insults and logical fallacies doesn't suddenly make a point valid.
I've just read the full report and the end result is that a lack of data does allow for an accurate conclusion.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,708
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
If you want me to answer this question, take it to the America thread so this one can stay on track.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,396
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Socioeconomic factors combined with a degree of racial bias is the conclusion studies have found (in multiple countries). I'm more than happy to supply the study details if you like.
It is however why I stuck with the unarmed numbers, which are still out of wack (on the basis that they are more likely to be either innocent or nonviolent regardless of race).
I mean the only other thing would be that you are suggesting that somehow white people are less inclined to crime and violence for no other reason than being white. I can't see it being that as it would be absurd.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
That works all very well with children but reality is a lot more complicated. In reality if everyone refrained from saying anything that could offend someone else it would be a nightmare world yes, because one person's idea of "nice" is different to another's. Everyone would be walking around on egg shells afraid to express a political opinion or make a joke in fear that someone might be offended. By all means don't go out of your way to offend someone but don't keep quiet to avoid the risk of offending someone if you feel what you want to say needs to be said. We don't want to end up like the Canadians always apologizing, do we @Johnnypenso.
- 86,676
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
We have a very well developed thread on political correctness, if you want to have a look through.
Ultimately the problem with political correctness is that it isn't what you seem to be saying it is - the notion of not being rude about people on purpose. It's a movement whose singular purpose is to remove all possible terms of offence from language and behaviour, by legislation, in order that no-one can be offended, through the pretense of homogeneity. This is fundamentally impossible (anyone can take offence at anything, at any time, and for any reason) and spectacularly misguided - people are different, thank goodness.
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,045
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
If this is the case then it seems to me to be an odd charge for someone to level at people on this thread by labelling them as members of "PCPD". If only legislative bodies are capable of PC then it sounds like individuals are only trying to be polite unless they're specifically campaigning for the law to be changed.
- 86,676
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's a little more general than that.
People who moderate their own language in public according to their own rules are just normal people being polite. PC is more people who seek to moderate the language of other people in public according to their own rules. Legislating it is just the golden goose - if they can make it law, it can be enforced with firearms and prison.
- 13,850
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Your source says 987. If you want to use that number I don't mind, but it doesn't really change the point that I'm making.
Unarmed unfortunately doesn't mean much in the States. Many people regularly walk around armed, including solid, law abiding citizens. That 68 out of 987 were unarmed tells us more about the level of gun ownership in the US than whether they were killed lawfully.
330 million citizens doesn't mean anything in this context. What we're looking at is the probability that you are shot if you have contact with police.
It's hard to tell how many police killings are lawful or unlawful because so many go unprosecuted. Cases where the victim was unarmed are not necessarily unlawful, but may have been poor judgement. Likewise, cases where the victim was armed were not necessarily lawful.
It is dangerous. It's also dangerous to be a young black man interacting with police, just like it's dangerous to be a young woman walking alone at night.
I'd like it to be safer, and mutual trust is one way to get there, but it's not something you achieve by just saying "don't tell them about the bad stuff that happens". Own up to it and
Hold your horses, fella. I am not doing any of what you claim. I don't support anyone who makes false claims against anyone, and I find them to be particularly damaging against police officers. I definitely don't support doxxing people who haven't been proven to commit a crime, especially one that has riled the community.
I haven't and don't perpetuate falsehoods, at least not intentionally. So I'll thank you not to accuse me of being complicit in the false claims of others. I haven't said anything before this post about the claims you linked to or BLM, so please don't assume that you know my position on either one. You may ask if you like, but it's obviously not what you think it is.
Me too. It's unfortunate that a lot of police and unions have pushed back against body cams. I understand that it's uncomfortable to have your work continually on record, but that's actually just the reality for most workers these days. There are cameras everywhere. But they're becoming the norm, and in ten years they'll probably be ubiquitous.
Honestly, decent camera coverage probably solved the vast majority of the issues, which are where it turns into a he said/she said with a citizen versus a police officer. And in general, you would expect a random police officer to be more truthful and invested in justice than a random citizen, which is why they tend to get the benefit of the doubt. But clearly in some areas that isn't the case and the public knows it, hence the push back.
Oh, don't get me wrong, there's a ton of reasons why the system has ended up the way it has. But that's just an explanation, not an excuse. Police got out and do their job every day, and they have some say in how they do it. I don't think it's an easy job, especially not as a street cop, nor do I expect police to always act with perfect judgement. But I come from Australia, where we have at best a handful of police shootings a year, including the lawful ones.
My observation is that for a number of reasons police in the US have been trained to be far quicker to react with disproportionate or lethal force than would be deemed reasonable in Australia. I assume it's largely training rather than culture, but it could be a bit of both. And this is why it's a bit of a Catch 22 when it comes to what you say in the first paragraph, about telling people that the police aren't dangerous. As long as each side thinks the other is dangerous, they'll both be much quicker to use violence to defend themselves. Lose:lose.
That's not valid, for reasons I explained above. The active population in contact with the police is much smaller than that, and the actual "at risk" population smaller still.
You're creating a strawman here. Don't take it just because I used a source with "crisis" in the web address that I think it's a crisis. I don't control the names people choose for their websites, and data is data. Chill with the logical fallacies, please.
However, if I take your math I'd say a thousand deaths in a million police contacts is absolutely a cause for concern. You're OK with a one in a thousand chance of ending up in a pine box when a cop pulls you over? That seems like a lot. 1 in 20,000 even if you're unarmed? Ouch. That's not really sustainable on a national scale. I guarantee you anyone with kids is not going to want to expose the kids or themselves to that level of risk. Especially not from a service that you call on in emergencies.
Seriously, as someone who works with explosives daily (and therefore spends a non-trivial amount of time estimating the likelihood of me blowing myself up and the number of limbs likely to remain), a 1 in a 1000 risk of fatality is insanely high. Unacceptably high. I do not do a task that is assessed as a 1 in 1000 risk of fatality or life altering injury, even as a once off. At the risk of oversimplifying statistics, accepting such a risk would give you good odds of being dead within five years, and near certainty within ten.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
