Minorities in uk more likely to be stopped and searched

Post Reply New Topic

When we speak of 'white privilege' we aren't necessarilly speaking of objective privileges such as more money, better housing or more chance of landing jobs.

'White privilege' in the modern context, quote often manifests in not having to deal with this as part and parcel of your regular experience.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24902389

There's nothing wrong with privilege anyway. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a race or tribe building a society and running it for their own benefit. Nobody forced non-whites to move to Britain, and nobody's forcing them to stay. If white privilege were so bad for non-whites they would be trying to get away from white people. But they don't; they do the opposite. Every year more and more non-whites want to move to countries where white people live. So they get stopped and searched more? I don't care.

Non whites are divided into two groups, those who are migrate here and those who are descended from people who did migrate here. So it is stupid to claim that arbitary harrassment of minorities can be resolved through more migration when quite often they have no legal claim to other countries. Moreover, people who choose to migrate to the UK don't come to 'be close to white people' they come to follow wealth because by in large the worlds wealth is disproportionately syphoned into Europe and North America. What also complicates the matters more with countries like the UK is that we have old colonial interests in places like the West Indies, Africa and the Indian Sub continent. By in large, these people are descended from British subjects who have as much right to be here as any indigenous white person does. Especially when you consider that many of their forefathers fought and died for our interests under our banners. If we don't like this situation then we shouldn't have made our colonial bed in the first place.

It's even worse in the U.S.

What they want is to move to new places and change things in their favor. That's what everyone who moves wants and why not? If I can change things in my favor I would, white, black, beige, brown skin or however I look. We all want to be favored even though we may lie and say we don't when put on the spot. It's human nature to want to be favored. That's the dilemma here. What do you do about it? You have to take turns or compromise or something because for someone to be favored, there's always another who isn't and desperately wants to be. Everyone is looking for something better. It's called being human.

Are the minorities more likely to commit crimes?

Yeah, chicken and the egg, but usually there's a reason for things, and muh bigotry usually isn't the one in today's PC world.

With all due respect to everybody's sensibilities, this is still the United Kingdom. The police represent the crown in this issue. An officer doesn't have to justify why they are stopping you. You are on royal land - it's up to you to justify your presence and activities here.

Yeah, no.

For starters, you are innocent until proven guilty... (though obviously a lower standard is used for arrests)

You've swung and missed on the issue. It isn't "the Queen is oppressing us" (!), but "police officers are disproportionately targeting ethnic minorities".

Even if what you said was an accurate summary of British law - it isn't - then reasonable people would be perfectly justified in trying to change a terrible system.

I would genuinely be interested to see crime statistics committed by each minority group, compared to the total number of said group in the UK.

However if a certain minority group were statistically more likely to commit certain types of crime, should they be stopped more often if there is suspicion? If most terrorists look a certain way, should those with "the look" be searched more for public safely?

It's a hard question and may lead us to a situation like we have with dogs in the UK, who look a certain way and are euthanized without ever committing a crime! I.e. Your judged on your "type" not personally.

Not suggesting euthanasising people by the way just to clarify.

Without giving fair inspection to other social drivers of crime by demographic, such as poverty, access to education and employment then it would appear to be implying that different races are biologically more predisposed to crime which is nonsense.

No, profiling would be an awful practice and only serve to sustain racist narratives. It would serve to create even further inter-community antagonism and create a self fulfilling claim that other groups are inherently more violent.

Seriously? You're comparing humans to dogs now?

Why not? You've already more or less made a list of proposals that Goebbels would be proud of.

Having looked this up on another thread, in the US, black people commit most of the crime proportionally, and for some crimes they commit more in actual numbers.

For example, in the US, they make up just 12.6% of the population yet commit more murders and robberies than the other 87.4% of the population, according to the FBI. This also means they make up a large % of the prison population.

I don't know what it is like in the UK. However, to turn a blind eye to crime statistics seems foolish. This article seems biased because it fails to mention the proportional racial crime rates per region.

There are many cities around Detroit that have "fallen" into ghetto as they changed to a non-white city, so I can understand if the locals want to kick out minorities. The PC people don't care if your home losses value, or if your city crime rate skyrockets, or schools bring in many low performing students that need special attention, or really even a crap about you. They push their agenda on you and let you and your family suffer the pain.

There was a black guy on tv a few days ago complaining that low home prices in Southfield, MI was letting in poor blacks and this would ruin his neighborhood. I can probably find the article. His message: Keep those minorities out!

Too be fair if you were white in a country like Saudi or Egypt you probably would not have a really great time either

Even though in white countries some could argue white privilege is a problem I personally think of it more as "majority privilege" as when a certain group of people dominates a countries demographics it means that they will often be given a hierarchy of sorts in society and its not just regarding race it can be used for almost every time of demographic (age,sex,religion,sexual orientation/identity)

You didn't read the OP again, did you?

Of course. Profiling is a practical application of statistics. Common sense demands is.

Hypothetically, you would be guilty. You being charged with trespass on someone else's land whilst standing on that person's land. You went there voluntarily when you left the house. Nobody forced you at, say, gun point.

I never said the Queen was oppressing us.

Police aren't targeting ethnic people, they're not stopping the white people.

The point of the thread is the suggestion that not being stopped is a luxury of white privilege whilst the pseudo science statistics there don't make mention of class, whether anyone had a criminal record or whether anything illegal was uncovered.

Secondly, the report will the stats from some areas are 25 times more likely to be stopped but the overall is 6 times more likely. So there's a drag. Most of the UK could well be equal with some whites are even more likely to be stopped than the ethnic community.

But my question in all this is: What's it to do with people on here? The Police are doing their job.