London

[musik]

Sept 7, 2022 6:41:59 GMT elystokie said:

Sept 6, 2022 23:44:16 GMT musik said:

I read it. Not much about Sweden there though at all.
In my world the focus should be on the victim.
The most fair way might be to let the victims decide what the outcome should be in each case.

Isn't the Swedish prison system run along similar lines tho?

The focus should be on the victim, but letting the victim decide the punishment sounds quite ridiculous to me.
öå99p0äö
Any idea what the actual recidivism rate is or are we sticking with what the policeman said?

More towards the norwegian way, yes I believe so. As I wrote in another post it costs the taxpayers 1.200.000 SEK (£100.000) per year to have a person in prison. I repeat 1.200.000 SEK. When the average annual income for a full time employed in Sweden is 420.000 SEK.
Probably due to having a physiotherapist, a psyciatrist, a chef, a hairdresser and some mates, guards I mean (irony 🤠). They even get paid for working.

The percentage is what he said. I've also heard the number mentioned during the latest days, since there's A LOT of political debate now (Election on Sunday). However, I suspect they refer to certain type of crimes.
The recidivism rate isn't that much of interest though, actually not at all normally if you ask the victims. What's done is done.

Why not let the victims decide?

Say whatever you like about places like Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Romania, Nigeria and China, but we have political parties who are not against exporting the criminals to those places. It will be a lot cheaper to us. Romania and Bulgaria are willing to sign an agreement already. A win-win situation.

[elystokie]

Sept 7, 2022 9:18:25 GMT musik said:

Sept 7, 2022 6:41:59 GMT elystokie said:

Isn't the Swedish prison system run along similar lines tho?

The focus should be on the victim, but letting the victim decide the punishment sounds quite ridiculous to me.
öå99p0äö
Any idea what the actual recidivism rate is or are we sticking with what the policeman said?

More towards the norwegian way, yes I believe so. As I wrote in another post it costs the taxpayers 1.200.000 SEK (£100.000) per year to have a person in prison. I repeat 1.200.000 SEK. When the average annual income for a full time employed in Sweden is 420.000 SEK.
Probably due to having a physiotherapist, a psyciatrist, a chef, a hairdresser and some mates, guards I mean (irony 🤠). They even get paid for working.

The percentage is what he said. I've also heard the number mentioned during the latest days, since there's A LOT of political debate now (Election on Sunday). However, I suspect they refer to certain type of crimes.
The recidivism rate isn't that much of interest though, actually not at all normally if you ask the victims. What's done is done.

Why not let the victims decide?

Say whatever you like about places like Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Romania, Nigeria and China, but we have political parties who are not against exporting the criminals to those places. It will be a lot cheaper to us. Romania and Bulgaria are willing to sign an agreement already. A win-win situation.

I agree to an extent with letting the victim decide, but only within clearly defined parameters and obviously crime dependant.

To give them carte blanche would be madness.

I'm also keen on the perpetrators being incentivised to meet up with their victims, obviously in a monitored setting and only if it's what the victim wants.

I think the recidivism rate is a good indicator of whether a system is working or not personally.

[musik]

Sept 7, 2022 9:34:19 GMT elystokie said:

I agree to an extent with letting the victim decide, but only within clearly defined parameters and obviously crime dependant.

To give them carte blanche would be madness.

I'm also keen on the perpetrators being incentivised to meet up with their victims, obviously in a monitored setting and only if it's what the victim wants.

I think the recidivism rate is a good indicator of whether a system is working or not personally.

But let us assume you start a political party and it was one of the top ideas on the leaflet.
"Let the victims decide the punishment".
Don't you think it would be a success?
🤣

The exporting of the criminals to poorer countries isn't just an idea from some extreme political party here. It has been discussed among several political parties and quite possibly we will see that in the (nearest) future, along with other precautions.

Do the same criminals commit crimes over and over again?

First of all you have to realise we don't know the exact number and never will. Predictions say 90% of certain type of crimes are never even reported. Part of that problem is we don't have anonymous witnesses. So how should we know?

[elystokie]

Sept 7, 2022 9:50:09 GMT musik said:

Sept 7, 2022 9:34:19 GMT elystokie said:

I agree to an extent with letting the victim decide, but only within clearly defined parameters and obviously crime dependant.

To give them carte blanche would be madness.

I'm also keen on the perpetrators being incentivised to meet up with their victims, obviously in a monitored setting and only if it's what the victim wants.

I think the recidivism rate is a good indicator of whether a system is working or not personally.

But let us assume you start a political party and it was one of the top ideas on the leaflet.
"Let the victims decide the punishment".
Don't you think it would be a success?
🤣

The exporting of the criminals to poorer countries isn't just an idea from some extreme political party here. It has been discussed among several political parties and quite possibly we will see that in the (nearest) future, along with other precautions.

Do the same criminals commit crimes over and over again?

First of all you have to realise we don't know the exact number and never will. Predictions say 90% of certain type of crimes are never even reported. Part of that problem is we don't have anonymous witnesses. So how should we know?

I'd imagine we'd know by examining all the relevant statistics, I don't imagine it's a difficult calculation.

You can only work it out on the information available, but that's the same for every country.

You appear to be arguing with yourself about exporting criminals, I haven't mentioned it 🤷

[musik]

Sept 7, 2022 9:56:13 GMT elystokie said:

Sept 7, 2022 9:50:09 GMT musik said:

But let us assume you start a political party and it was one of the top ideas on the leaflet.
"Let the victims decide the punishment".
Don't you think it would be a success?
🤣

The exporting of the criminals to poorer countries isn't just an idea from some extreme political party here. It has been discussed among several political parties and quite possibly we will see that in the (nearest) future, along with other precautions.

Do the same criminals commit crimes over and over again?

First of all you have to realise we don't know the exact number and never will. Predictions say 90% of certain type of crimes are never even reported. Part of that problem is we don't have anonymous witnesses. So how should we know?

I'd imagine we'd know by examining all the relevant statistics, I don't imagine it's a difficult calculation.

You can only work it out on the information available, but that's the same for every country.

You appear to be arguing with yourself about exporting criminals, I haven't mentioned it 🤷

It's not only difficult, it's impossible to know the correct figures how many criminals repeat the behaviour if crimes aren't even reported.

You have no opinion about China, Afghanistan, Bulgaria?

[Chewbacca the Wookie]

Sept 7, 2022 6:42:14 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

For me , if I was a parent of a 17-30 year old whose son or daughter was going out for the night in London ( or anywhere), I'd be saying that if you are stopped and searched , just accept it, be cooperative, be polite. If you are stopped 3 or 4 times in ONE night ( unlikely) remain calm , cooperate, accept it, be polite. I'd be saying ( and my children understood this)....that it is only for your safety and if you have nothing to hide, unfortunately it is one of the inconveniences of life in inner cities at present.

If one weapon is found then potentially that has saved my daughter's life.
The fact that a young person believes that he/she is quite likely to get stopped and searched should hopefully be a deterrent to carrying weapons....AND so SHOULD the punishment for doing so. When asked, most knife carriers claim that they carry them for self defence, not to be used offensively. It should not be necessary and to carry a knife is knowingly to take the risk of the punishment.

IS it still true that if stopped and searched the Police have to issue a paper saying so?...if this is a case and someone accumulates a totally disproportionate amout of chits, then yes perhaps this should be taken up through appropriate channels( with possibly no effect)...but unfortunately that may have to be the price of going out in a " dangerous " area....there are areas of London where you are more likely to be stopped than other areas.
In this age of body cameras ( on the Police) and cameras carried by friends it is possible/ likely that if the search is not carried out unprofessionally consequences could follow....so is the stop and search so intrusive compared to the safety of young people?

I don't particularly like to be "searched" every time I go through security before flights....imagine how much easier the process would be without checks. I don't particularly like the amount of surveillance cameras we have nowadays, but hopefully they are a deterrent.

Perhaps we will see more of these at shop entrances, entrances to clubs and pubs. I recall seeing mobile ones on pavements and people being asked to walk through.


www.wg-plc.com/category/walk-through-metal-detection



www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/random-knife-searches-on-all-pupils-in-waltham-forest-6701068.html?amp

summed up perfectly.

[followyoudown]

Sept 7, 2022 6:42:14 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

For me , if I was a parent of a 17-30 year old whose son or daughter was going out for the night in London ( or anywhere), I'd be saying that if you are stopped and searched , just accept it, be cooperative, be polite. If you are stopped 3 or 4 times in ONE night ( unlikely) remain calm , cooperate, accept it, be polite. I'd be saying ( and my children understood this)....that it is only for your safety and if you have nothing to hide, unfortunately it is one of the inconveniences of life in inner cities at present.

If one weapon is found then potentially that has saved my daughter's life.
The fact that a young person believes that he/she is quite likely to get stopped and searched should hopefully be a deterrent to carrying weapons....AND so SHOULD the punishment for doing so. When asked, most knife carriers claim that they carry them for self defence, not to be used offensively. It should not be necessary and to carry a knife is knowingly to take the risk of the punishment.

IS it still true that if stopped and searched the Police have to issue a paper saying so?...if this is a case and someone accumulates a totally disproportionate amout of chits, then yes perhaps this should be taken up through appropriate channels( with possibly no effect)...but unfortunately that may have to be the price of going out in a " dangerous " area....there are areas of London where you are more likely to be stopped than other areas.
In this age of body cameras ( on the Police) and cameras carried by friends it is possible/ likely that if the search is not carried out unprofessionally consequences could follow....so is the stop and search so intrusive compared to the safety of young people?

I don't particularly like to be "searched" every time I go through security before flights....imagine how much easier the process would be without checks. I don't particularly like the amount of surveillance cameras we have nowadays, but hopefully they are a deterrent.

Perhaps we will see more of these at shop entrances, entrances to clubs and pubs. I recall seeing mobile ones on pavements and people being asked to walk through.


www.wg-plc.com/category/walk-through-metal-detection



www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/random-knife-searches-on-all-pupils-in-waltham-forest-6701068.html?amp

Good points although I guess its not a night out you'd most likely get stopped on but more likely near where you live or visiting friends in certain areas etc etc which I can understand would start to get aggravating.

Does stop and search actually work I think you can argue yes or no without ever knowing as you dont ever know how many people have been put off carrying a weapon.

Airport security is a good one, they generally know the people that fit profile of higher risk, generally young male, travelling alone but then pad that out with checks on randoms so when I was last in Australia my then 70 year parents had a near 100% record for getting picked out for full body scanning on the internal flights we took.

[Rednwhitenblue]

fullfact.org/crime/does-stop-search-work/

[elystokie]

Sept 7, 2022 10:05:42 GMT musik said:

Sept 7, 2022 9:56:13 GMT elystokie said:

I'd imagine we'd know by examining all the relevant statistics, I don't imagine it's a difficult calculation.

You can only work it out on the information available, but that's the same for every country.

You appear to be arguing with yourself about exporting criminals, I haven't mentioned it 🤷

It's not only difficult, it's impossible to know the correct figures how many criminals repeat the behaviour if crimes aren't even reported.

You have no opinion about China, Afghanistan, Bulgaria?

It's impossible to know the absolute correct figures for many things but that doesn't mean we just throw out hands in the air and saywell that's that then, that would be ridiculous.

Not really no.

[Paul Spencer]

Sept 7, 2022 6:42:14 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

For me , if I was a parent of a 17-30 year old whose son or daughter was going out for the night in London ( or anywhere), I'd be saying that if you are stopped and searched , just accept it, be cooperative, be polite. If you are stopped 3 or 4 times in ONE night ( unlikely) remain calm , cooperate, accept it, be polite. I'd be saying ( and my children understood this)....that it is only for your safety and if you have nothing to hide, unfortunately it is one of the inconveniences of life in inner cities at present.

If one weapon is found then potentially that has saved my daughter's life.
The fact that a young person believes that he/she is quite likely to get stopped and searched should hopefully be a deterrent to carrying weapons....AND so SHOULD the punishment for doing so. When asked, most knife carriers claim that they carry them for self defence, not to be used offensively. It should not be necessary and to carry a knife is knowingly to take the risk of the punishment.

IS it still true that if stopped and searched the Police have to issue a paper saying so?...if this is a case and someone accumulates a totally disproportionate amout of chits, then yes perhaps this should be taken up through appropriate channels( with possibly no effect)...but unfortunately that may have to be the price of going out in a " dangerous " area....there are areas of London where you are more likely to be stopped than other areas.
In this age of body cameras ( on the Police) and cameras carried by friends it is possible/ likely that if the search is not carried out unprofessionally consequences could follow....so is the stop and search so intrusive compared to the safety of young people?

I don't particularly like to be "searched" every time I go through security before flights....imagine how much easier the process would be without checks. I don't particularly like the amount of surveillance cameras we have nowadays, but hopefully they are a deterrent.

Perhaps we will see more of these at shop entrances, entrances to clubs and pubs. I recall seeing mobile ones on pavements and people being asked to walk through.


www.wg-plc.com/category/walk-through-metal-detection



www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/random-knife-searches-on-all-pupils-in-waltham-forest-6701068.html?amp

A lot of people would suggest it's not an inconvenience of life in inner cities at the moment BJR but rather, it's an inconvenience of not being white in inner cities at the moment and besides, there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that the policy even 'works'.

I do agree with you about punishments being far, far tougher. I think being found in posession of a knife should carry a mandatroy 3 year prison sentence, with absolutely no burden placed on police officers to prove an intent for it's use and I also think that pop up metal detectors on pavements, where ALL pedestarians (regardless of race) are asked to walk through, is a perfectly reasonable proposal.

This is a link to an extremely lengthy paper and is probably one of the most comprehensive studies made on the subject, please feel free to read it but in case it does seem like too much of a read, I've highlighted a few bits that I think are most relevant.

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Does%20stop%20and%20search%20reduce%20crime.pdf

The evidence from London chimes with that from
the other studies outlined above. Large, and often
very large, numbers of extra stops seem to be
needed to generate even modest reductions in
crime. Consider the following ‘worked example’
from our data. The London borough of Southwark
recorded 1,282 searches in October 2014, and
2,295 susceptible crimes in November 2014. If
crime was to be 3 per cent lower in November –
the equivalent of 69 fewer crimes – we estimate
that an additional 1,180 searches would have been
required in October (taking the total to 2,462).
Assuming it takes an average of 15 minutes to
carry out a search, the extra searches that month
would take 295 officer hours (or two extra officers).
There were a total of 337 searches in week 45 of
2014 and 542 crimes in week 46. If there were to
be 16 fewer crimes in week 46 (3 per cent lower),
it was estimated that an additional 722 searches
would have been required in week 45 (1,059 in
total). Again, assuming 15 minutes per search,
the additional searches required that week would
have taken 181 officer hours (or four extra officers).
And remember that most of the crimes ‘deterred’
would be drugs offences, and in all likelihood
minor drugs offences at that (Shiner et al., 2018).

One intriguing question is whether it is valid to
assume, as we have done so far, that all the effect
of stop and search on crime is negative – that if
stop and search goes up crime will only go down
(or simply stay the same). Procedural justice
theory suggests that to the extent stop and search
is considered unfair (and we know this is often
the case – Bradford, 2017) it may actually CAUSE
crime. Since police activity experienced as unfair
undermines public trust and police legitimacy,
and weakens people’s social bonds to the law
and legal institutions, stop and search may have
a positive effect on crime, increasing levels of
offending among those subject to it (Tyler, 2006).
While it seems unlikely that any such process
would function over the relatively short timescales
considered in our London study, in a general
sense the increasingly well evidenced association
between procedural injustice and offending (Tyler,
2017) cautions against assuming a unidirectional
association between stop/search and crime.

The evidence described above suggests that there
is no hydraulic relationship between stop and
search and crime. It seems unlikely that crime can
be reduced simply by increasing use of the power;
and suggestions that conducting more searches
provides a simple, easy and/or ‘obvious’ way to
reduce crime are very likely mistaken. Coupled
with the lack of evidence for effectiveness in
dealing with crime, the extent of the geographic
variation in the use of the power and the fact
that most stop/searches are for possession of
drugs also raises questions. Put bluntly, if some
forces can ‘manage’ by conducting far fewer
per capita searches, and across the board the
grounds for searches are often not addressing
force priorities, why do some forces (still) use the
power so much more than others? Answers to
this question are largely outside our remit here.
But they likely involve local police cultures and
the link between police activity and deprivation
(Bradford, 2017; Shiner et al., 2018). They open up
inevitable discussions about the extent to which
stop and search is not really ‘about’ crime, but
rather relates to wider processes of social control
directed particularly at deprived and marginal
populations. The evidence we have presented
above supports this argument by underlining
the only marginal association between stop and
search and, in particular, violent and indeed
‘volume’ crime.

[bigjohnritchie]

Sept 7, 2022 12:27:03 GMT Paul Spencer said:

Sept 7, 2022 6:42:14 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

For me , if I was a parent of a 17-30 year old whose son or daughter was going out for the night in London ( or anywhere), I'd be saying that if you are stopped and searched , just accept it, be cooperative, be polite. If you are stopped 3 or 4 times in ONE night ( unlikely) remain calm , cooperate, accept it, be polite. I'd be saying ( and my children understood this)....that it is only for your safety and if you have nothing to hide, unfortunately it is one of the inconveniences of life in inner cities at present.

If one weapon is found then potentially that has saved my daughter's life.
The fact that a young person believes that he/she is quite likely to get stopped and searched should hopefully be a deterrent to carrying weapons....AND so SHOULD the punishment for doing so. When asked, most knife carriers claim that they carry them for self defence, not to be used offensively. It should not be necessary and to carry a knife is knowingly to take the risk of the punishment.

IS it still true that if stopped and searched the Police have to issue a paper saying so?...if this is a case and someone accumulates a totally disproportionate amout of chits, then yes perhaps this should be taken up through appropriate channels( with possibly no effect)...but unfortunately that may have to be the price of going out in a " dangerous " area....there are areas of London where you are more likely to be stopped than other areas.
In this age of body cameras ( on the Police) and cameras carried by friends it is possible/ likely that if the search is not carried out unprofessionally consequences could follow....so is the stop and search so intrusive compared to the safety of young people?

I don't particularly like to be "searched" every time I go through security before flights....imagine how much easier the process would be without checks. I don't particularly like the amount of surveillance cameras we have nowadays, but hopefully they are a deterrent.

Perhaps we will see more of these at shop entrances, entrances to clubs and pubs. I recall seeing mobile ones on pavements and people being asked to walk through.


www.wg-plc.com/category/walk-through-metal-detection



www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/random-knife-searches-on-all-pupils-in-waltham-forest-6701068.html?amp

A lot of people would suggest it's not an inconvenience of life in inner cities at the moment BJR but rather, it's an inconvenience of not being white in inner cities at the moment and besides, there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that the policy even 'works'.

I do agree with you about punishments being far, far tougher. I think being found in posession of a knife should carry a mandatroy 3 year prison sentence, with absolutely no burden placed on police officers to prove an intent for it's use and I also think that pop up metal detectors on pavements, where ALL pedestarians (regardless of race) are asked to walk through, is a perfectly reasonable proposal.

This is a link to an extremely lengthy paper and is probably one of the most comprehensive studies made on the subject, please feel free to read it but in case it does seem like too much of a read, I've highlighted a few bits that I think are most relevant.

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Does%20stop%20and%20search%20reduce%20crime.pdf

The evidence from London chimes with that from
the other studies outlined above. Large, and often
very large, numbers of extra stops seem to be
needed to generate even modest reductions in
crime. Consider the following ‘worked example’
from our data. The London borough of Southwark
recorded 1,282 searches in October 2014, and
2,295 susceptible crimes in November 2014. If
crime was to be 3 per cent lower in November –
the equivalent of 69 fewer crimes – we estimate
that an additional 1,180 searches would have been
required in October (taking the total to 2,462).
Assuming it takes an average of 15 minutes to
carry out a search, the extra searches that month
would take 295 officer hours (or two extra officers).
There were a total of 337 searches in week 45 of
2014 and 542 crimes in week 46. If there were to
be 16 fewer crimes in week 46 (3 per cent lower),
it was estimated that an additional 722 searches
would have been required in week 45 (1,059 in
total). Again, assuming 15 minutes per search,
the additional searches required that week would
have taken 181 officer hours (or four extra officers).
And remember that most of the crimes ‘deterred’
would be drugs offences, and in all likelihood
minor drugs offences at that (Shiner et al., 2018).

One intriguing question is whether it is valid to
assume, as we have done so far, that all the effect
of stop and search on crime is negative – that if
stop and search goes up crime will only go down
(or simply stay the same). Procedural justice
theory suggests that to the extent stop and search
is considered unfair (and we know this is often
the case – Bradford, 2017) it may actually CAUSE
crime. Since police activity experienced as unfair
undermines public trust and police legitimacy,
and weakens people’s social bonds to the law
and legal institutions, stop and search may have
a positive effect on crime, increasing levels of
offending among those subject to it (Tyler, 2006).
While it seems unlikely that any such process
would function over the relatively short timescales
considered in our London study, in a general
sense the increasingly well evidenced association
between procedural injustice and offending (Tyler,
2017) cautions against assuming a unidirectional
association between stop/search and crime.

The evidence described above suggests that there
is no hydraulic relationship between stop and
search and crime. It seems unlikely that crime can
be reduced simply by increasing use of the power;
and suggestions that conducting more searches
provides a simple, easy and/or ‘obvious’ way to
reduce crime are very likely mistaken. Coupled
with the lack of evidence for effectiveness in
dealing with crime, the extent of the geographic
variation in the use of the power and the fact
that most stop/searches are for possession of
drugs also raises questions. Put bluntly, if some
forces can ‘manage’ by conducting far fewer
per capita searches, and across the board the
grounds for searches are often not addressing
force priorities, why do some forces (still) use the
power so much more than others? Answers to
this question are largely outside our remit here.
But they likely involve local police cultures and
the link between police activity and deprivation
(Bradford, 2017; Shiner et al., 2018). They open up
inevitable discussions about the extent to which
stop and search is not really ‘about’ crime, but
rather relates to wider processes of social control
directed particularly at deprived and marginal
populations. The evidence we have presented
above supports this argument by underlining
the only marginal association between stop and
search and, in particular, violent and indeed
‘volume’ crime.

Thanks Paul

Yes I'm aware of the issues and reports around stop and search and Policing, particularly in the Met. There have been many reports since Lawrence but apparently little progress even implementing the recommendations of Macpherson. A more representative Police force would help as well as tackling poverty and discrimination in other areas.

In my post I deliberately avoided race and the overall strategy of trying prevent knife crime. It has been debated on here before and is a whole topic in itself. Really I was posting as a parent of a young person and as an ex Policeman....not about the overall strategy

If stopped and searched my advice would still be ...cooperate, be polite etc....ie...if the young person " kicks off" then things can and do escalate, sometimes giving the Police enough evidence to arrest.
I did say (something like) should the person feel victimised then , record it, take it up via all channels possible ( MP, police complaints, media)...but unfortunately treat the incident, at the time, as an inconvenience...wrong time and place in my opinion to challenge the system, little power to do so.

I would give that advice to my children and also believe I would give the same advice if I was the mother of a black child.

As far as the strategy goes I can accept the findings of the reports, except to say that the Police or the wider community have not been given the resources, the help , the guidance or strategy to tackle the issue.
There still remains a good chance that this weekend a young person will be stabbed to death in London and the odds are that that person will be black. I don't know what the Police are supposed to do, it is a wider issue than Policing and if stop and search is a complete "no no" then Politicians need a better answer.....but that answer won't be on place this weekend or for the foreseeable future...but the Police will have to "do their best" in the meantime...from experience I can say that it isn't easy being a Policeman at 1.00 or 2.00 in the morning as the revellers leave a place like the " INSET" ( past nightclub)In Stoke...which must be chicken feed compared to what the Met has to put up with these days

Where perhaps I differ from the reports, IF a young person believes that there would be a good chance that they might get stopped and searched I think that it would be a deterrent ( I think the evidence says otherwise), personally, I think, in the short term, in some targeted areas MORE policing is needed.....and of course it should be applied equally to black and white. As a parent I would feel happy believing that the Police were " out there doing their job"

But , for clarity, I absolutely agree that all the recommendations of all the reports/ enquiries should be implemented....but as I say...... in the meantime....how do we tackle things this weekendand next?

[elystokie]

Sept 7, 2022 10:27:39 GMT followyoudown said:

Sept 7, 2022 6:42:14 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

For me , if I was a parent of a 17-30 year old whose son or daughter was going out for the night in London ( or anywhere), I'd be saying that if you are stopped and searched , just accept it, be cooperative, be polite. If you are stopped 3 or 4 times in ONE night ( unlikely) remain calm , cooperate, accept it, be polite. I'd be saying ( and my children understood this)....that it is only for your safety and if you have nothing to hide, unfortunately it is one of the inconveniences of life in inner cities at present.

If one weapon is found then potentially that has saved my daughter's life.
The fact that a young person believes that he/she is quite likely to get stopped and searched should hopefully be a deterrent to carrying weapons....AND so SHOULD the punishment for doing so. When asked, most knife carriers claim that they carry them for self defence, not to be used offensively. It should not be necessary and to carry a knife is knowingly to take the risk of the punishment.

IS it still true that if stopped and searched the Police have to issue a paper saying so?...if this is a case and someone accumulates a totally disproportionate amout of chits, then yes perhaps this should be taken up through appropriate channels( with possibly no effect)...but unfortunately that may have to be the price of going out in a " dangerous " area....there are areas of London where you are more likely to be stopped than other areas.
In this age of body cameras ( on the Police) and cameras carried by friends it is possible/ likely that if the search is not carried out unprofessionally consequences could follow....so is the stop and search so intrusive compared to the safety of young people?

I don't particularly like to be "searched" every time I go through security before flights....imagine how much easier the process would be without checks. I don't particularly like the amount of surveillance cameras we have nowadays, but hopefully they are a deterrent.

Perhaps we will see more of these at shop entrances, entrances to clubs and pubs. I recall seeing mobile ones on pavements and people being asked to walk through.


www.wg-plc.com/category/walk-through-metal-detection



www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/random-knife-searches-on-all-pupils-in-waltham-forest-6701068.html?amp

Good points although I guess its not a night out you'd most likely get stopped on but more likely near where you live or visiting friends in certain areas etc etc which I can understand would start to get aggravating.

Does stop and search actually work I think you can argue yes or no without ever knowing as you dont ever know how many people have been put off carrying a weapon.

Airport security is a good one, they generally know the people that fit profile of higher risk, generally young male, travelling alone but then pad that out with checks on randoms so when I was last in Australia my then 70 year parents had a near 100% record for getting picked out for full body scanning on the internal flights we took.

Both of my son's used to get regular stop and searches on their way home from their mates houses, the reason/excuse was near enough always the same - "there's been a burglary" (although there were rarely any burglaries reported in the press) my lads always politely complied as far as I'm aware even though it must have got thoroughly tiresome.

They even stopped one of my lads on the "burglary" gag when he had two laptops and a tablet in his backpack, they didn't even question him about them.

We lived on the edge of a Cambridgeshire village, there was certainly no history of stabbings or any violence really unless you go back literally hundreds of years.

So no burglaries and no stabbings, doesn't take a genius to work out what it was they were actually looking for and I think it's this abuse of stop and search that pisses people off and alienates them from the police.

I carry a backpack often, never been stopped and searched once.

[partickpotter]

Sept 9, 2022 8:09:22 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Sept 7, 2022 12:27:03 GMT Paul Spencer said:

A lot of people would suggest it's not an inconvenience of life in inner cities at the moment BJR but rather, it's an inconvenience of not being white in inner cities at the moment and besides, there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that the policy even 'works'.

I do agree with you about punishments being far, far tougher. I think being found in posession of a knife should carry a mandatroy 3 year prison sentence, with absolutely no burden placed on police officers to prove an intent for it's use and I also think that pop up metal detectors on pavements, where ALL pedestarians (regardless of race) are asked to walk through, is a perfectly reasonable proposal.

This is a link to an extremely lengthy paper and is probably one of the most comprehensive studies made on the subject, please feel free to read it but in case it does seem like too much of a read, I've highlighted a few bits that I think are most relevant.

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Does%20stop%20and%20search%20reduce%20crime.pdf

The evidence from London chimes with that from
the other studies outlined above. Large, and often
very large, numbers of extra stops seem to be
needed to generate even modest reductions in
crime. Consider the following ‘worked example’
from our data. The London borough of Southwark
recorded 1,282 searches in October 2014, and
2,295 susceptible crimes in November 2014. If
crime was to be 3 per cent lower in November –
the equivalent of 69 fewer crimes – we estimate
that an additional 1,180 searches would have been
required in October (taking the total to 2,462).
Assuming it takes an average of 15 minutes to
carry out a search, the extra searches that month
would take 295 officer hours (or two extra officers).
There were a total of 337 searches in week 45 of
2014 and 542 crimes in week 46. If there were to
be 16 fewer crimes in week 46 (3 per cent lower),
it was estimated that an additional 722 searches
would have been required in week 45 (1,059 in
total). Again, assuming 15 minutes per search,
the additional searches required that week would
have taken 181 officer hours (or four extra officers).
And remember that most of the crimes ‘deterred’
would be drugs offences, and in all likelihood
minor drugs offences at that (Shiner et al., 2018).

One intriguing question is whether it is valid to
assume, as we have done so far, that all the effect
of stop and search on crime is negative – that if
stop and search goes up crime will only go down
(or simply stay the same). Procedural justice
theory suggests that to the extent stop and search
is considered unfair (and we know this is often
the case – Bradford, 2017) it may actually CAUSE
crime. Since police activity experienced as unfair
undermines public trust and police legitimacy,
and weakens people’s social bonds to the law
and legal institutions, stop and search may have
a positive effect on crime, increasing levels of
offending among those subject to it (Tyler, 2006).
While it seems unlikely that any such process
would function over the relatively short timescales
considered in our London study, in a general
sense the increasingly well evidenced association
between procedural injustice and offending (Tyler,
2017) cautions against assuming a unidirectional
association between stop/search and crime.

The evidence described above suggests that there
is no hydraulic relationship between stop and
search and crime. It seems unlikely that crime can
be reduced simply by increasing use of the power;
and suggestions that conducting more searches
provides a simple, easy and/or ‘obvious’ way to
reduce crime are very likely mistaken. Coupled
with the lack of evidence for effectiveness in
dealing with crime, the extent of the geographic
variation in the use of the power and the fact
that most stop/searches are for possession of
drugs also raises questions. Put bluntly, if some
forces can ‘manage’ by conducting far fewer
per capita searches, and across the board the
grounds for searches are often not addressing
force priorities, why do some forces (still) use the
power so much more than others? Answers to
this question are largely outside our remit here.
But they likely involve local police cultures and
the link between police activity and deprivation
(Bradford, 2017; Shiner et al., 2018). They open up
inevitable discussions about the extent to which
stop and search is not really ‘about’ crime, but
rather relates to wider processes of social control
directed particularly at deprived and marginal
populations. The evidence we have presented
above supports this argument by underlining
the only marginal association between stop and
search and, in particular, violent and indeed
‘volume’ crime.

Thanks Paul

Yes I'm aware of the issues and reports around stop and search and Policing, particularly in the Met. There have been many reports since Lawrence but apparently little progress even implementing the recommendations of Macpherson. A more representative Police force would help as well as tackling poverty and discrimination in other areas.

In my post I deliberately avoided race and the overall strategy of trying prevent knife crime. It has been debated on here before and is a whole topic in itself. Really I was posting as a parent of a young person and as an ex Policeman....not about the overall strategy

If stopped and searched my advice would still be ...cooperate, be polite etc....ie...if the young person " kicks off" then things can and do escalate, sometimes giving the Police enough evidence to arrest.
I did say (something like) should the person feel victimised then , record it, take it up via all channels possible ( MO, police complaints, media)...but unfortunately treat the incident, at the time, as an inconvenience...wrong time and place in my opinion to challenge the system, little power to do so.

I would give thst advice to my children and also believe I would give the same advice if I was the mother of a black child.

As far as the strategy goes I can accept the findings of the reports, except to say that the Police or the wider community have not been given the resources, the help , the guidance or strategy to tackle the issue.
There still remains a good chance that this weekend a young person will be stabbed to death in London and the odds are that that person will be black. I don't know what the Police are supposed to do, it is a wider issue than Policing and if stop and search is a complete "no no" then Politicians need a better answer.....but that answer won't be on place this weekend or for the foreseeable future...but the Police will have to "do their best" in the meantime...from experience I can say that it isn't easy being a Policeman at 1.00 or 2.00 in the morning as the revellers leave a place like the " INSET" ( past nightclub)In Stoke...which must be chicken feed compared to what the Met has to put up with these days

Where perhaps I differ from the reports, IF a young person believes that there would be a good chance that they might get stopped and searched I think that it would be a deterrent ( I think the evidence says otherwise), personally, I think, in the short term, in some targeted areas MORE policing is needed.....and of course it should be applied equally to black and white. As a parent I would feel happy believing that the Police were " out there doing their job"

But , for clarity, I absolutely agree that all the recommendations of all the reports/ enquiries should be implemented....but as I say...... in the meantime

I’m currently listening to Ghettoside by Jill Levoy which looks at black crime in America focussing on one particular murder in Los Angeles.

Much of what you say resonates with what she says.

She makes the point, very convincingly, that violence is a consequence of lawlessness. That the lack of law enforcement, for example in allowing people to carry knifes, is a vital factor in the violence that follows. Further, she makes the point that the failure to recognise the racial component of crime, compounds the problem because it means policy makers can avoid having to act on the root causes.

Meaning, the liberal left look elsewhere while the right clamp down on the results of crime not the causes of it.

Well worth a read (or listen!).

[bigjohnritchie]

Sept 9, 2022 8:36:58 GMT partickpotter said:

Sept 9, 2022 8:09:22 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Thanks Paul

Yes I'm aware of the issues and reports around stop and search and Policing, particularly in the Met. There have been many reports since Lawrence but apparently little progress even implementing the recommendations of Macpherson. A more representative Police force would help as well as tackling poverty and discrimination in other areas.

In my post I deliberately avoided race and the overall strategy of trying prevent knife crime. It has been debated on here before and is a whole topic in itself. Really I was posting as a parent of a young person and as an ex Policeman....not about the overall strategy

If stopped and searched my advice would still be ...cooperate, be polite etc....ie...if the young person " kicks off" then things can and do escalate, sometimes giving the Police enough evidence to arrest.
I did say (something like) should the person feel victimised then , record it, take it up via all channels possible ( MO, police complaints, media)...but unfortunately treat the incident, at the time, as an inconvenience...wrong time and place in my opinion to challenge the system, little power to do so.

I would give thst advice to my children and also believe I would give the same advice if I was the mother of a black child.

As far as the strategy goes I can accept the findings of the reports, except to say that the Police or the wider community have not been given the resources, the help , the guidance or strategy to tackle the issue.
There still remains a good chance that this weekend a young person will be stabbed to death in London and the odds are that that person will be black. I don't know what the Police are supposed to do, it is a wider issue than Policing and if stop and search is a complete "no no" then Politicians need a better answer.....but that answer won't be on place this weekend or for the foreseeable future...but the Police will have to "do their best" in the meantime...from experience I can say that it isn't easy being a Policeman at 1.00 or 2.00 in the morning as the revellers leave a place like the " INSET" ( past nightclub)In Stoke...which must be chicken feed compared to what the Met has to put up with these days

Where perhaps I differ from the reports, IF a young person believes that there would be a good chance that they might get stopped and searched I think that it would be a deterrent ( I think the evidence says otherwise), personally, I think, in the short term, in some targeted areas MORE policing is needed.....and of course it should be applied equally to black and white. As a parent I would feel happy believing that the Police were " out there doing their job"

But , for clarity, I absolutely agree that all the recommendations of all the reports/ enquiries should be implemented....but as I say...... in the meantime

I’m currently listening to Ghettoside by Jill Levoy which looks at black crime in America focussing on one particular murder in Los Angeles.

Much of what you say resonates with what she says.

She makes the point, very convincingly, that violence is a consequence of lawlessness. That the lack of law enforcement, for example in allowing people to carry knifes, is a vital factor in the violence that follows. Further, she makes the point that the failure to recognise the racial component of crime, compounds the problem because it means policy makers can avoid having to act on the root causes.

Meaning, the liberal left look elsewhere while the right clamp down on the results of crime not the causes of it.

Well worth a read (or listen!).

Where do you listen to it Partick....audio books?

Just two asides that have come to mind.....

I can remember going to an incident in Liverpool Road Stoke, alot of young people shouting , threatening etc..something had happened before I/we got there involving a Policeman who was already there. Anyway there were about 6 of us in a circle 2 Police 4 young people who were only 16 -18 discussing/ analysing what had gone on...no one arrested at this stage..then , right out of the blue one of these lads ( a big one)headbutted the original Police officer, breaking his nose.
( I don't know why I'm posting that( which is normal for me))
Just hearsay....but it came to my attention that in the London area there was a character fairly well known to the Police. He was suspected of carrying a weapon. At certain times he would provoke a situation in front of the Police in order to get "stopped and searched "...of course he had no weapons...but over a period of time he could claim/ have evidence that he had been targeted..." stopped and searched " seven or eight times in a short period of time.

So what do the Police do next time..or when resources are diverted elsewhere?

[prestwichpotter]

Sept 9, 2022 8:36:58 GMT partickpotter said:

Sept 9, 2022 8:09:22 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Thanks Paul

Yes I'm aware of the issues and reports around stop and search and Policing, particularly in the Met. There have been many reports since Lawrence but apparently little progress even implementing the recommendations of Macpherson. A more representative Police force would help as well as tackling poverty and discrimination in other areas.

In my post I deliberately avoided race and the overall strategy of trying prevent knife crime. It has been debated on here before and is a whole topic in itself. Really I was posting as a parent of a young person and as an ex Policeman....not about the overall strategy

If stopped and searched my advice would still be ...cooperate, be polite etc....ie...if the young person " kicks off" then things can and do escalate, sometimes giving the Police enough evidence to arrest.
I did say (something like) should the person feel victimised then , record it, take it up via all channels possible ( MO, police complaints, media)...but unfortunately treat the incident, at the time, as an inconvenience...wrong time and place in my opinion to challenge the system, little power to do so.

I would give thst advice to my children and also believe I would give the same advice if I was the mother of a black child.

As far as the strategy goes I can accept the findings of the reports, except to say that the Police or the wider community have not been given the resources, the help , the guidance or strategy to tackle the issue.
There still remains a good chance that this weekend a young person will be stabbed to death in London and the odds are that that person will be black. I don't know what the Police are supposed to do, it is a wider issue than Policing and if stop and search is a complete "no no" then Politicians need a better answer.....but that answer won't be on place this weekend or for the foreseeable future...but the Police will have to "do their best" in the meantime...from experience I can say that it isn't easy being a Policeman at 1.00 or 2.00 in the morning as the revellers leave a place like the " INSET" ( past nightclub)In Stoke...which must be chicken feed compared to what the Met has to put up with these days

Where perhaps I differ from the reports, IF a young person believes that there would be a good chance that they might get stopped and searched I think that it would be a deterrent ( I think the evidence says otherwise), personally, I think, in the short term, in some targeted areas MORE policing is needed.....and of course it should be applied equally to black and white. As a parent I would feel happy believing that the Police were " out there doing their job"

But , for clarity, I absolutely agree that all the recommendations of all the reports/ enquiries should be implemented....but as I say...... in the meantime

I’m currently listening to Ghettoside by Jill Levoy which looks at black crime in America focussing on one particular murder in Los Angeles.

Much of what you say resonates with what she says.

She makes the point, very convincingly, that violence is a consequence of lawlessness. That the lack of law enforcement, for example in allowing people to carry knifes, is a vital factor in the violence that follows. Further, she makes the point that the failure to recognise the racial component of crime, compounds the problem because it means policy makers can avoid having to act on the root causes.

Meaning, the liberal left look elsewhere while the right clamp down on the results of crime not the causes of it.

Well worth a read (or listen!).

Does she mention poverty as well? 

[partickpotter]

Sept 9, 2022 8:42:42 GMT prestwichpotter said:

Sept 9, 2022 8:36:58 GMT partickpotter said:

I’m currently listening to Ghettoside by Jill Levoy which looks at black crime in America focussing on one particular murder in Los Angeles.

Much of what you say resonates with what she says.

She makes the point, very convincingly, that violence is a consequence of lawlessness. That the lack of law enforcement, for example in allowing people to carry knifes, is a vital factor in the violence that follows. Further, she makes the point that the failure to recognise the racial component of crime, compounds the problem because it means policy makers can avoid having to act on the root causes.

Meaning, the liberal left look elsewhere while the right clamp down on the results of crime not the causes of it.

Well worth a read (or listen!).

Does she mention poverty as well? 

Not particularly.

She does make the point that black communities in poor areas have much higher homicide rates than other racial communities that have similar levels of poverty. In the case of LA, adjacent Hispanic and black communities with identical economic situations have massively different homicide rates.

I’ve not finished the book yet so she may cover poverty in more detail later, but her main argument, so far, is the police (representing society generally) have effectively abandoned black areas and the violence is a direct consequence of that.

In other words, it’s the absence of law rather than the presence of poverty that drives excessive homicide.

[bigjohnritchie]

Sept 9, 2022 8:42:42 GMT prestwichpotter said:

Sept 9, 2022 8:36:58 GMT partickpotter said:

I’m currently listening to Ghettoside by Jill Levoy which looks at black crime in America focussing on one particular murder in Los Angeles.

Much of what you say resonates with what she says.

She makes the point, very convincingly, that violence is a consequence of lawlessness. That the lack of law enforcement, for example in allowing people to carry knifes, is a vital factor in the violence that follows. Further, she makes the point that the failure to recognise the racial component of crime, compounds the problem because it means policy makers can avoid having to act on the root causes.

Meaning, the liberal left look elsewhere while the right clamp down on the results of crime not the causes of it.

Well worth a read (or listen!).

Does she mention poverty as well? 

Poverty is indeed deemed one of the root causes of endemic resentment towards the Police in the reports into Policing, similar to the one Paul cited.
My post was more about the day to day situation a young person might find themselves in.

[partickpotter]

Sept 9, 2022 8:39:43 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Sept 9, 2022 8:36:58 GMT partickpotter said:

I’m currently listening to Ghettoside by Jill Levoy which looks at black crime in America focussing on one particular murder in Los Angeles.

Much of what you say resonates with what she says.

She makes the point, very convincingly, that violence is a consequence of lawlessness. That the lack of law enforcement, for example in allowing people to carry knifes, is a vital factor in the violence that follows. Further, she makes the point that the failure to recognise the racial component of crime, compounds the problem because it means policy makers can avoid having to act on the root causes.

Meaning, the liberal left look elsewhere while the right clamp down on the results of crime not the causes of it.

Well worth a read (or listen!).

Where do you listen to it Partick....audio books?

Just two asides that have come to mind.....

I can remember going to an incident in Liverpool Road Stoke, alot of young people shouting , threatening etc..something had happened before I/we got there involving a Policeman who was already there. Anyway there were about 6 of us in a circle 2 Police 4 young people who were only 16 -18 discussing/ analysing what had gone on...no one arrested at this stage..then , right out of the blue one of these lads ( a big one)headbutted the original Police officer, breaking his nose.
( I don't know why I'm posting that( which is normal for me))
Just hearsay....but it came to my attention that in the London area there was a character fairly well known to the Police. He was suspected of carrying a weapon. At certain times he would provoke a situation in front of the Police in order to get "stopped and searched "...of course he had no weapons...but over a period of time he could claim/ have evidence that he had been targeted..." stopped and searched " seven or eight times in a short period of time.

So what do the Police do next time..or when resources are diverted elsewhere?

I listen on Audible.

I don’t have an answer to the problems though.

Properly accepting the situation would be a start.

[elystokie]

Sept 9, 2022 8:53:42 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Sept 9, 2022 8:42:42 GMT prestwichpotter said:

Does she mention poverty as well? 

Poverty is indeed deemed one of the root causes of endemic resentment towards the Police in the reports into Policing, similar to the one Paul cited.
My post was more about the day to day situation a young person might find themselves in.

I genuinely think drug prohibition is also one of the root causes BJR, the situation we have is really not much different to alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the issues with gangs and violence that came with that.

I saw a graph once showing the relative homicide rates in times of prohibition in the US and times when there wasn't any (or very little), the difference was stark, unsurprisingly there was huge increases in times of prohibition.

[musik]

Sept 5, 2022 6:51:12 GMT elystokie said:

Are there any problems with alcohol abuse in Sweden musik?

Do many people still smoke cigarettes?

This morning a doctor who was also into research explained the development. Among the youngest people (up to 29) smoking has diminished over time. And the same clear development is seen when it comes to alcohol use. However, the oldest people (65 and above) have increased their alcohol use.

He also mentioned Antabus, which makes you feel sick if you try to drink (as I wrote about).
Campral and Naproxen (possibly spelled wrong) are two newer medicine aiming to take away the need for drinking alcohol.
It and others under development with alteration can be used on other drugs as well, to take away the response to drugs in the brain within the reward system. Very promising, they thought.

The studio host mentioned the eventuality of narcotics being the substitute for alcohol since the new millenium if we see a decrease in drinking alcohol up to 29 years of age.
He said it could absolutely be so and during the week they have seen people analysing this as a cause to the increased violence in society, all the shooting, worst in Europe per capita.

[bigjohnritchie]

Sept 10, 2022 7:23:19 GMT elystokie said:

Sept 9, 2022 8:53:42 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Poverty is indeed deemed one of the root causes of endemic resentment towards the Police in the reports into Policing, similar to the one Paul cited.
My post was more about the day to day situation a young person might find themselves in.

I genuinely think drug prohibition is also one of the root causes BJR, the situation we have is really not much different to alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the issues with gangs and violence that came with that.

I saw a graph once showing the relative homicide rates in times of prohibition in the US and times when there wasn't any (or very little), the difference was stark, unsurprisingly there was huge increases in times of prohibition.

Sounds plausible Ely, I'm not aware of any reports or enquires making the link.....I'm sure someone will post a link if there is one.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you.It would be "interesting" to found out how many of the victims and perpetrators of stabbings/ shootings of young people belong to gangs associated with drugs.

( which takes us to the debate...at least with " low-level" drugs , should they be legalised, but I'm not aware that anyone is suggesting that ALL drugs should be, so the illegal trade would continue). The argument that giving people genuine aspirations, job opportunities and tackling poverty should all be welcomed...But surely , in itself, simplistically, being poor should not mean that you stab someone.




Just googled this, interesting

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom


Dartford
maps.app.goo.gl/uhK9FXgiXyMiEyHN6

[elystokie]

Sept 10, 2022 7:36:25 GMT musik said:

Sept 5, 2022 6:51:12 GMT elystokie said:

Are there any problems with alcohol abuse in Sweden musik?

Do many people still smoke cigarettes?

This morning a doctor who was also into research explained the development. Among the youngest people (up to 29) smoking has diminished over time. And the same clear development is seen when it comes to alcohol use. However, the oldest people (65 and above) have increased their alcohol use.

He also mentioned Antabus, which makes you feel sick if you try to drink (as I wrote about).
Campral and Naproxen (possibly spelled wrong) are two newer medicine aiming to take away the need for drinking alcohol.
It and others under development with alteration can be used on other drugs as well, to take away the response to drugs in the brain within the reward system. Very promising, they thought.

The studio host mentioned the eventuality of narcotics being the substitute for alcohol since the new millenium if we see a decrease in drinking alcohol up to 29 years of age.
He said it could absolutely be so and during the week they have seen people analysing this as a cause to the increased violence in society, all the shooting, worst in Europe per capita.

If someone has a valuable product that sells very well to a lot of people but is illegal you have an unregulated market.

In an unregulated market (as we've seen in prohibitionist America) the people with the most to lose will 'regulate' it themselves and violence/homicide are more often than not the result of that 'regulation'.

[bigjohnritchie]

Sept 10, 2022 7:43:43 GMT elystokie said:

Sept 10, 2022 7:36:25 GMT musik said:

This morning a doctor who was also into research explained the development. Among the youngest people (up to 29) smoking has diminished over time. And the same clear development is seen when it comes to alcohol use. However, the oldest people (65 and above) have increased their alcohol use.

He also mentioned Antabus, which makes you feel sick if you try to drink (as I wrote about).
Campral and Naproxen (possibly spelled wrong) are two newer medicine aiming to take away the need for drinking alcohol.
It and others under development with alteration can be used on other drugs as well, to take away the response to drugs in the brain within the reward system. Very promising, they thought.

The studio host mentioned the eventuality of narcotics being the substitute for alcohol since the new millenium if we see a decrease in drinking alcohol up to 29 years of age.
He said it could absolutely be so and during the week they have seen people analysing this as a cause to the increased violence in society, all the shooting, worst in Europe per capita.

If someone has a valuable product that sells very well to a lot of people but is illegal you have an unregulated market.

In an unregulated market (as we've seen in prohibitionist America) the people with the most to lose will 'regulate' it themselves and violence/homicide are more often than not the result of that 'regulation'.

Just one example, Ely...

www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/savage-drug-gang-teenagers-cut-6136062.amp

[elystokie]

Sept 10, 2022 7:43:13 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Sept 10, 2022 7:23:19 GMT elystokie said:

I genuinely think drug prohibition is also one of the root causes BJR, the situation we have is really not much different to alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the issues with gangs and violence that came with that.

I saw a graph once showing the relative homicide rates in times of prohibition in the US and times when there wasn't any (or very little), the difference was stark, unsurprisingly there was huge increases in times of prohibition.

Sounds plausible Ely, I'm not aware of any reports or enquires making the link.....I'm sure someone will post a link if there is one.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you.It would be "interesting" to found out how many of the victims and perpetrators of stabbings/ shootings of young people belong to gangs associated with drugs.

( which takes us to the debate...at least with " low-level" drugs , should they be legalised, but I'm not aware that anyone is suggesting that ALL drugs should be, so the illegal trade would continue). The argument that giving people genuine aspirations, job opportunities and tackling poverty should all be welcomed...But surely , in itself, simplistically, being poor should not mean that you stab someone.

I absolutely agree with aspirations, job opportunities etc being a crucial part of any solution.

I think they're fighting over territory and marketplace an awful lot of the time John.

There are groups advocating for drug legalisation, they get very little media coverage tho'.

Transform is one group, Anyone's Child is another, there might be more.

Anyone's Child is a group of (mainly) parents that have lost their kids due to drug prohibition and are fighting to end it.

anyoneschild.org/

[oggyoggy]

A lot of people who don’t live in London have extraordinarily strong views on it.

A wonderful place to live if you can afford the housing. I live in a beautiful, leafy community, 5 min walk from the river, 15 min walk from Richmond Park. Great state schools (for primary at least), rated the best area in the country for state primaries.

I can easily get a GP appointment within 7 days of calling. 2 A&Es within 20 min drive. Amazing public transport network (even though I am not on the tube). Great independent shops and farmer’s markets (I vary between 3 each week, 2 of which are walkable). Plus the west end (where I never go) or numerous massive shopping centres (which I also never visit) for those who like that sort of thing for shopping.

The average restaurant/gastro pub is very high quality. Good selection of walkable local pubs. Loads of live football at varying levels (particularly now Brentford and Fulham are back in the Prem).

Crime is low where I live. Some areas it is obviously high. But it is a vast city so you don’t have to go to those areas unless you choose to.

The full array of London culture is a short train into town away. World class museums, galleries, theatre, ballet, opera, sport, film, all the new entertainment venues with ax throwing, darts, escape rooms, live experiences etc. Unparalleled in the rest of the country for depth and breadth and I am talking about going to see the best in the world, or joining in amateur things of the above. Whatever you are into, you can find it in London.

Huge variety of nightlife and nighttime activities, from late night cat cafes to massive nightclubs and wear house raves and festivals.

It is culturally diverse (I know lots of the racists on here will see that as a negative but I certainly don’t). It means people from all over the world go to my son’s school and he learns so much from them. As do I from friends. And it brings up the quality of cultural events and food. People are therefore open minded and more friendly and accepting of others as a result.

Pretty much whatever you want to do for a living can be done in London, with generally more opportunities and higher salaries than the rest of the country. Many sectors are world leading.

Having grown up in Cornwall and lived in Stoke and London, I find people are extremely friendly to those they consider their own in Cornwall and Stoke which is great if you are part of it. In London I find people much more likely to be friendlier to anyone in the community, no matter what you look or sound like and no matter if you are not a local.

The absolutely massive downside of London is the price of housing. That is the only reason my family and I will have to move at some stage (probably when thinking about secondary schools for the kids which aren’t great in my particular area).

[bigjohnritchie]

Sept 10, 2022 7:55:13 GMT oggyoggy said:

A lot of people who don’t live in London have extraordinarily strong views on it.

A wonderful place to live if you can afford the housing. I live in a beautiful, leafy community, 5 min walk from the river, 15 min walk from Richmond Park. Great state schools (for primary at least), rated the best area in the country for state primaries.

I can easily get a GP appointment within 7 days of calling. 2 A&Es within 20 min drive. Amazing public transport network (even though I am not on the tube). Great independent shops and farmer’s markets (I vary between 3 each week, 2 of which are walkable). Plus the west end (where I never go) or numerous massive shopping centres (which I also never visit) for those who like that sort of thing for shopping.

The average restaurant/gastro pub is very high quality. Good selection of walkable local pubs. Loads of live football at varying levels (particularly now Brentford and Fulham are back in the Prem).

Crime is low where I live. Some areas it is obviously high. But it is a vast city so you don’t have to go to those areas unless you choose to.

The full array of London culture is a short train into town away. World class museums, galleries, theatre, ballet, opera, sport, film, all the new entertainment venues with ax throwing, darts, escape rooms, live experiences etc. Unparalleled in the rest of the country for depth and breadth and I am talking about going to see the best in the world, or joining in amateur things of the above. Whatever you are into, you can find it in London.

Huge variety of nightlife and nighttime activities, from late night cat cafes to massive nightclubs and wear house raves and festivals.

It is culturally diverse (I know lots of the racists on here will see that as a negative but I certainly don’t). It means people from all over the world go to my son’s school and he learns so much from them. As do I from friends. And it brings up the quality of cultural events and food. People are therefore open minded and more friendly and accepting of others as a result.

Pretty much whatever you want to do for a living can be done in London, with generally more opportunities and higher salaries than the rest of the country. Many sectors are world leading.

Having grown up in Cornwall and lived in Stoke and London, I find people are extremely friendly to those they consider their own in Cornwall and Stoke which is great if you are part of it. In London I find people much more likely to be friendlier to anyone in the community, no matter what you look or sound like and no matter if you are not a local.

The absolutely massive downside of London is the price of housing. That is the only reason my family and I will have to move at some stage (probably when thinking about secondary schools for the kids which aren’t great in my particular area).

One of the greatest cities in the world

[elystokie]

Sept 10, 2022 7:54:04 GMT bigjohnritchie said:

Sept 10, 2022 7:43:43 GMT elystokie said:

If someone has a valuable product that sells very well to a lot of people but is illegal you have an unregulated market.

In an unregulated market (as we've seen in prohibitionist America) the people with the most to lose will 'regulate' it themselves and violence/homicide are more often than not the result of that 'regulation'.

Just one example, Ely...

www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/savage-drug-gang-teenagers-cut-6136062.amp

What a waste of life

The sad thing is that there'll be kids ready and willing to take their place and the supply of drugs will probably remain unaffected

[UNKLE]

Sept 10, 2022 7:55:13 GMT oggyoggy said:

A lot of people who don’t live in London have extraordinarily strong views on it.

A wonderful place to live if you can afford the housing. I live in a beautiful, leafy community, 5 min walk from the river, 15 min walk from Richmond Park. Great state schools (for primary at least), rated the best area in the country for state primaries.

I can easily get a GP appointment within 7 days of calling. 2 A&Es within 20 min drive. Amazing public transport network (even though I am not on the tube). Great independent shops and farmer’s markets (I vary between 3 each week, 2 of which are walkable). Plus the west end (where I never go) or numerous massive shopping centres (which I also never visit) for those who like that sort of thing for shopping.

The average restaurant/gastro pub is very high quality. Good selection of walkable local pubs. Loads of live football at varying levels (particularly now Brentford and Fulham are back in the Prem).

Crime is low where I live. Some areas it is obviously high. But it is a vast city so you don’t have to go to those areas unless you choose to.

The full array of London culture is a short train into town away. World class museums, galleries, theatre, ballet, opera, sport, film, all the new entertainment venues with ax throwing, darts, escape rooms, live experiences etc. Unparalleled in the rest of the country for depth and breadth and I am talking about going to see the best in the world, or joining in amateur things of the above. Whatever you are into, you can find it in London.

Huge variety of nightlife and nighttime activities, from late night cat cafes to massive nightclubs and wear house raves and festivals.

It is culturally diverse (I know lots of the racists on here will see that as a negative but I certainly don’t). It means people from all over the world go to my son’s school and he learns so much from them. As do I from friends. And it brings up the quality of cultural events and food. People are therefore open minded and more friendly and accepting of others as a result.

Pretty much whatever you want to do for a living can be done in London, with generally more opportunities and higher salaries than the rest of the country. Many sectors are world leading.

Having grown up in Cornwall and lived in Stoke and London, I find people are extremely friendly to those they consider their own in Cornwall and Stoke which is great if you are part of it. In London I find people much more likely to be friendlier to anyone in the community, no matter what you look or sound like and no matter if you are not a local.

The absolutely massive downside of London is the price of housing. That is the only reason my family and I will have to move at some stage (probably when thinking about secondary schools for the kids which aren’t great in my particular area).

I can only echo everything you’ve said.

The cultural diversity is a real positive and shouldn’t be overlooked.

The mix of cultures the children experience at school, and outside is something I want them to enjoy.

We’re lucky that where we are the high schools are excellent and my sons is welcoming and inclusive, and a short walk away. That said I never thought we’d still be here with them at a high school age, but you make roots, you make friends, they make friends and that’s it.

House prices are a real issue though even more so with Crossrail.

[prestwichpotter]

I fear for the Queen’s funeral, reading through this thread the gold carriage carrying her coffin will be on four bricks, there will be several Beefeaters butchered in broad daylight and the convoy will have to divert up to Milton Keynes to avoid so many no go areas……

[elystokie]

Sept 10, 2022 9:41:51 GMT prestwichpotter said:

I fear for the Queen’s funeral, reading through this thread the gold carriage carrying her coffin will be on four bricks, there will be several Beefeaters butchered in broad daylight and the convoy will have to divert up to Milton Keynes to avoid so many no go areas……

My lad went to that London earlier this week, managed to get what he needed to do done early so he had a wander around, according to his fitness thing he walked about 5 miles.

How he managed to get through the day and out of that hellhole without serious incident is beyond me...