Bianca Williams stop accusing race motivated.
Discussion
This was originally published in The Spectator
The stop and search race myth - Alasdair Palmer.
When I was working as a speech writer in the Home Office, under Theresa May, one of her special advisers told me that she wanted to give a statement to parliament on the police's use of stop and search. Part of the motive for doing this, he explained, was political: stop and search is a policy which consistently alienates members of the black community. I was told that it would help the home secretary's standing with Afro-Caribbeans if she made a statement that was critical of the police's use of stop and search.
The grounds would essentially be that the tool was racist, or at least used by the police in a racist way: the statistics demonstrated that you were six or seven times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority.
In fact, the Home Office had done research in the relatively recent past which showed that the statistics do not demonstrate this. P.A.J. Waddington, now a professor at Wolverhampton University, worked for the Home Office during the late 1990s and the early noughties. In the wake of the publication of the Macpherson report, he was part of a Home Office team that looked carefully at the Met's use of stop and search. The task was to establish if indeed it was being used in a racist way, as the ‘six or seven times more likely’ statistic suggests.
It was noted that the statistic was obtained by looking at the percentage of the total number of stop and search incidents that a particular ethnic group was subject to, and then dividing it by the percentage that that ethnic group makes up of the population of the UK as a whole. If you then compare the figure that calculation generates for whites with the figure you get for ethnic minorities, the result is that members of ethnic minorities are ‘six or seven times more likely to be stopped’ than white people.
The Home Office research showed that calculating relative stop and search rates in that way is very misleading. If you want to know if the police are stopping and searching members of particular ethnic groups in a biased and possibly racist way, then what you need to know is who is available to be stopped and searched on the streets at the times that the police are stopping and searching people.
For instance, the police stop and search a miniscule number of women, of all races, over the age of 70. Does this show they are biased in favour of these women? Obviously not. It simply shows that the police do not receive reports that women over the age of 70 have been involved in mugging people on the streets – and therefore are not useful or appropriate targets for being stopped and searched. Women over the age of 70 also tend not to be on the streets at the times and in the places the police do stop and search.
The team of Home Office researchers felt it was important to know the ethnic composition of the population available to be stopped and searched in the places and at the times the police were implementing that tactic. So they went out and counted it: they identified the percentage of the street population made up by each ethnic group. They then compared that with the percentage of stop and searches that were made up by each ethnic group. They discovered that, when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population.
The police, the Home Office research showed, did not target particular areas for stop and search because they wanted to stop and search people of a particular ethnic group. They chose those areas because that's where the highest amount of street crime was reported – and stop and search's primary purpose is to diminish street crimes such as mugging and robbery.
But a decade later, not one official within the Home Office seemed aware of this work. No-one had heard of it. No-one could tell me where I could find it. There was no Home Office library where such items were catalogued and so available for being accessed – or if there was, no official I talked to knew about it.
I nevertheless felt that it was important that this truth be reflected in any parliamentary statement made by the home secretary. It would certainly be possible to point out that there are many things wrong with stop and search, because there are: it is often implemented badly; those stopped are not given adequate reasons why they are being stopped; they are often treated rudely and without the respect they are entitled to. But on its own, the statistical evidence of the way it is used does not suggest that it is implemented in a racist way.
So that is what I put in my draft of her parliamentary statement. The reaction was an explosion of rage from the special adviser, and an emphatic assertion that Waddington's point – that statistics on stop and search do not support the idea that it is implemented by the police in a racist way – would not be in the speech. He told me: ‘Of course I could take this up with the home secretary.’ But he did not. I doubt she was ever informed that the statistic used to demonstrate police race bias in the application of stop and search was misleading.
The special adviser re-wrote the statement in the way he wanted it, with the misleading statistic, and she gave the statement to parliament as he had written it on 2 July 2013. And the rest is history.
WRITTEN BY
Alasdair Palmer
The stop and search race myth - Alasdair Palmer.
When I was working as a speech writer in the Home Office, under Theresa May, one of her special advisers told me that she wanted to give a statement to parliament on the police's use of stop and search. Part of the motive for doing this, he explained, was political: stop and search is a policy which consistently alienates members of the black community. I was told that it would help the home secretary's standing with Afro-Caribbeans if she made a statement that was critical of the police's use of stop and search.
The grounds would essentially be that the tool was racist, or at least used by the police in a racist way: the statistics demonstrated that you were six or seven times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority.
In fact, the Home Office had done research in the relatively recent past which showed that the statistics do not demonstrate this. P.A.J. Waddington, now a professor at Wolverhampton University, worked for the Home Office during the late 1990s and the early noughties. In the wake of the publication of the Macpherson report, he was part of a Home Office team that looked carefully at the Met's use of stop and search. The task was to establish if indeed it was being used in a racist way, as the ‘six or seven times more likely’ statistic suggests.
It was noted that the statistic was obtained by looking at the percentage of the total number of stop and search incidents that a particular ethnic group was subject to, and then dividing it by the percentage that that ethnic group makes up of the population of the UK as a whole. If you then compare the figure that calculation generates for whites with the figure you get for ethnic minorities, the result is that members of ethnic minorities are ‘six or seven times more likely to be stopped’ than white people.
The Home Office research showed that calculating relative stop and search rates in that way is very misleading. If you want to know if the police are stopping and searching members of particular ethnic groups in a biased and possibly racist way, then what you need to know is who is available to be stopped and searched on the streets at the times that the police are stopping and searching people.
For instance, the police stop and search a miniscule number of women, of all races, over the age of 70. Does this show they are biased in favour of these women? Obviously not. It simply shows that the police do not receive reports that women over the age of 70 have been involved in mugging people on the streets – and therefore are not useful or appropriate targets for being stopped and searched. Women over the age of 70 also tend not to be on the streets at the times and in the places the police do stop and search.
The team of Home Office researchers felt it was important to know the ethnic composition of the population available to be stopped and searched in the places and at the times the police were implementing that tactic. So they went out and counted it: they identified the percentage of the street population made up by each ethnic group. They then compared that with the percentage of stop and searches that were made up by each ethnic group. They discovered that, when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population.
The police, the Home Office research showed, did not target particular areas for stop and search because they wanted to stop and search people of a particular ethnic group. They chose those areas because that's where the highest amount of street crime was reported – and stop and search's primary purpose is to diminish street crimes such as mugging and robbery.
But a decade later, not one official within the Home Office seemed aware of this work. No-one had heard of it. No-one could tell me where I could find it. There was no Home Office library where such items were catalogued and so available for being accessed – or if there was, no official I talked to knew about it.
I nevertheless felt that it was important that this truth be reflected in any parliamentary statement made by the home secretary. It would certainly be possible to point out that there are many things wrong with stop and search, because there are: it is often implemented badly; those stopped are not given adequate reasons why they are being stopped; they are often treated rudely and without the respect they are entitled to. But on its own, the statistical evidence of the way it is used does not suggest that it is implemented in a racist way.
So that is what I put in my draft of her parliamentary statement. The reaction was an explosion of rage from the special adviser, and an emphatic assertion that Waddington's point – that statistics on stop and search do not support the idea that it is implemented by the police in a racist way – would not be in the speech. He told me: ‘Of course I could take this up with the home secretary.’ But he did not. I doubt she was ever informed that the statistic used to demonstrate police race bias in the application of stop and search was misleading.
The special adviser re-wrote the statement in the way he wanted it, with the misleading statistic, and she gave the statement to parliament as he had written it on 2 July 2013. And the rest is history.
WRITTEN BY
Alasdair Palmer
wjb said:
Red 4 said:
Manner of driving and using the backstreets apparently.
As you say though, no reason is required so your point is moot.
My point exactly, no reason required, and the fact that officers can also use discretion regarding picking and choosing who they want to give tickets to and/or arrest. As you say though, no reason is required so your point is moot.
This, along with stop /search has historically been abused by the police resulting in black people being treated unfairly down the years.
Which in turn has made large parts of black community believe the police are the enemy.
Basically the "old lot" have ruined it for officers now.
Some will be getting accused of racism when they are in fact, just doing their job.
The cap will obviously fit some others though.
Just my opinion on it all.
Not just the figures but the facts.
You're wrong. Don't believe the hype.
The resident population
Using the ‘general population’ or ‘resident population’ of a geographical area enables the calculation of the number of stops and searches conducted per capita, or per 1,000 head of population within each ethnic group. In England and Wales for 2005^6 the figures were 15 for white people, 90 for black people, 27 for Asian people and 23 for people of other ethnic origins. These figures show that black people in England and Wales were six times as likely to be stopped and searched by the police in comparison with their white counterparts. The figures on the use of stop/search powers are broadly consistent with survey research in this area. Surveys have shown markedly higher per capita rates of stop and search of black people, especially young black men.
The ‘available population‘
A second criterion against which to compare numbers of stop and searches is the population among different ethnic groups ‘available’ to be stopped.
The advantage of this measure is that it recognises that some demographic groups distinguished on the basis of age, ethnic origin, gender, etc are more likely than others to spend their time at home, at work or are otherwise in private space where they are ‘unavailable’ to be stopped by the police, while others, conversely, are more likely to be ‘available’ by virtue of their demographic characteristics and lifestyle.
The Home Office research study exploring this comparator concluded that resident populations give a poor indication of the populations available to be searched.
Within ‘available populations’, white people tend to be stopped and searched at a higher rate, Asian people tend to be under-represented and black people are sometimes under- and sometimes over-represented.
The argument is best illustrated by looking at a specific location such as an
outer London borough with a low ethnic minority population, but with a day- time ‘street population’ of people drawn from more ethnically diverse neighbouring boroughs by shopping centres, schools and colleges. Police commanders have long argued that the proportion of the population stopped and searched in such locations should not be compared with the resident population but with the population‘out and about’ in the area.
When this argument is applied in the most local context, it has some force.
As Waddington et al put it
The explanation for why the proportions of racial and ethnic minorities appear
high in stop and search figures is because they are compared to the resident population.
However, there is no reason why the resident population will be
reflected in the ‘available population’, and research evidence presented, supporting the Home Office research, is that the ‘available population’ has a very different racial profile
Although some have interpreted research on‘‘availability’’to mean that the disproportionate effect of police activities is no longer a problem’ there are problems with this approach. First,‘availability’, however defined, is not a neutral criterion against which to compare stop/search rates.
The extent to which a social group is
‘available’ to be stop/searched depends on such structural factors as unemploy-
ment, exclusion from school, homelessness, employment in occupations that
involve evening and night work, all of which are known to be associated with ethnic origin.
While these factors are beyond the control of the police, it proportionately selects from amongst this ‘‘available population’’, it remains the case that some ethnic minorities might be more exposed to stop and search for example research found that some of the black and
Asian population tended to work in jobs with unsociable hours, such as in fast food outlets, mini-cab drivers, shift work at factories and postal workers.
The Home Office research was targeted at ‘stop zones’, or those areas where 70^80 per cent of police stop and searches occur. Therefore, established police practice sets the parameters of ‘availability’ and is self-referential and self-reinforcing. As Home Office researchers put it,‘because people can only be available if they are in places where and when police carry out stops and searches, police decisions about where and when to target stops and searches will also structure available population characteristics’.
As many of the places in which police stop and search powers are concentrated are those with large ethnic minority populations (or where they socialise), those same populations are more likely to be defined as ‘available’.
This raises the question of why specific areas are the focus for particularly extensive use of police stop/search powers. In particular, can the locations in which stop and search is used most frequently can be justified by the differing levels of crime within these places?
The only study to examine this to date is that of MVA and Miller in the wake of the Lawrence Inquiry. Based on an analysis from Chapeltown district of Bristol and central Leicester, they found that there was ‘a fair degree of consistency between the patterns of crime in general and patterns of both stops and searches’,but ‘not a perfect Fit”
Using the ‘general population’ or ‘resident population’ of a geographical area enables the calculation of the number of stops and searches conducted per capita, or per 1,000 head of population within each ethnic group. In England and Wales for 2005^6 the figures were 15 for white people, 90 for black people, 27 for Asian people and 23 for people of other ethnic origins. These figures show that black people in England and Wales were six times as likely to be stopped and searched by the police in comparison with their white counterparts. The figures on the use of stop/search powers are broadly consistent with survey research in this area. Surveys have shown markedly higher per capita rates of stop and search of black people, especially young black men.
The ‘available population‘
A second criterion against which to compare numbers of stop and searches is the population among different ethnic groups ‘available’ to be stopped.
The advantage of this measure is that it recognises that some demographic groups distinguished on the basis of age, ethnic origin, gender, etc are more likely than others to spend their time at home, at work or are otherwise in private space where they are ‘unavailable’ to be stopped by the police, while others, conversely, are more likely to be ‘available’ by virtue of their demographic characteristics and lifestyle.
The Home Office research study exploring this comparator concluded that resident populations give a poor indication of the populations available to be searched.
Within ‘available populations’, white people tend to be stopped and searched at a higher rate, Asian people tend to be under-represented and black people are sometimes under- and sometimes over-represented.
The argument is best illustrated by looking at a specific location such as an
outer London borough with a low ethnic minority population, but with a day- time ‘street population’ of people drawn from more ethnically diverse neighbouring boroughs by shopping centres, schools and colleges. Police commanders have long argued that the proportion of the population stopped and searched in such locations should not be compared with the resident population but with the population‘out and about’ in the area.
When this argument is applied in the most local context, it has some force.
As Waddington et al put it
The explanation for why the proportions of racial and ethnic minorities appear
high in stop and search figures is because they are compared to the resident population.
However, there is no reason why the resident population will be
reflected in the ‘available population’, and research evidence presented, supporting the Home Office research, is that the ‘available population’ has a very different racial profile
Although some have interpreted research on‘‘availability’’to mean that the disproportionate effect of police activities is no longer a problem’ there are problems with this approach. First,‘availability’, however defined, is not a neutral criterion against which to compare stop/search rates.
The extent to which a social group is
‘available’ to be stop/searched depends on such structural factors as unemploy-
ment, exclusion from school, homelessness, employment in occupations that
involve evening and night work, all of which are known to be associated with ethnic origin.
While these factors are beyond the control of the police, it proportionately selects from amongst this ‘‘available population’’, it remains the case that some ethnic minorities might be more exposed to stop and search for example research found that some of the black and
Asian population tended to work in jobs with unsociable hours, such as in fast food outlets, mini-cab drivers, shift work at factories and postal workers.
The Home Office research was targeted at ‘stop zones’, or those areas where 70^80 per cent of police stop and searches occur. Therefore, established police practice sets the parameters of ‘availability’ and is self-referential and self-reinforcing. As Home Office researchers put it,‘because people can only be available if they are in places where and when police carry out stops and searches, police decisions about where and when to target stops and searches will also structure available population characteristics’.
As many of the places in which police stop and search powers are concentrated are those with large ethnic minority populations (or where they socialise), those same populations are more likely to be defined as ‘available’.
This raises the question of why specific areas are the focus for particularly extensive use of police stop/search powers. In particular, can the locations in which stop and search is used most frequently can be justified by the differing levels of crime within these places?
The only study to examine this to date is that of MVA and Miller in the wake of the Lawrence Inquiry. Based on an analysis from Chapeltown district of Bristol and central Leicester, they found that there was ‘a fair degree of consistency between the patterns of crime in general and patterns of both stops and searches’,but ‘not a perfect Fit”
wjb said:
You lost me there, sorry.
Get a better friendship circle, or don't. Up to you.
I am quite happy with my friendship circle thank you. I do not force my perceived rights and wrongs down peoples necks. Nobody has perfect friends - apart from maybe you - ?Get a better friendship circle, or don't. Up to you.
wjb said:
andymadmak said:
Ask Bianca Williams?
Why, is her complaint false or malicious?I don't follow you.
I would put both points on a par with being told to or asked to pull over by the police. You comply and let the police decide if it was a safe place to pull over. you do not drive on until you get home and then 'shout' racist.
Pip
wjb said:
Red 4 said:
You should read Earthdweller's post
You lost me there... The bottom line is if you want to make changes to support your agenda more blacks must procreate with whites and more blacks should be encouraged by their own kind to join the police. Moreover those joining should not be mistreated by their own kind. Shouting racist is not going to fix anything.
Pip
Pip1968 said:
wjb said:
You lost me there, sorry.
Get a better friendship circle, or don't. Up to you.
I am quite happy with my friendship circle thank you. I do not force my perceived rights and wrongs down peoples necks. Nobody has perfect friends - apart from maybe you - ?Get a better friendship circle, or don't. Up to you.
Nope, I don't have perfect friends, but over the years I've met lots of people, those who have shown traits like racism, I don't become/stay friends with.
Why would I want to be friends with people who think like that?
But like I said, you don't have to get a new friendship circle, you're clearly happy having racist friends and that's fine, enjoy receiving the "jokes".
Pip1968 said:
wjb said:
Red 4 said:
You should read Earthdweller's post
You lost me there... The bottom line is if you want to make changes to support your agenda more blacks must procreate with whites and more blacks should be encouraged by their own kind to join the police. Moreover those joining should not be mistreated by their own kind. Shouting racist is not going to fix anything.
Pip
Black's must procreate with whites? What are you on about?
There's so much wrong with what you've said today I simply don't have time to properly address it all right now.
I might come back to it if I have a spare afternoon.
Having held a position as a Senior Prison Officer previously for nearly 20yrs I can categorically tell you there are good and bad people of every colour and ethnicity. It is my experience that the way you speak to someone and initially react often determines what follows. I have extremely high skills in verbal and non verbal communication skills and have always had a reputation for resolving issues including being a trained Hostage Negotiator.
What I picked up from the clip (edited) and other things Ms Williams and partner have said is that by evading the initial attempt at a stop and driving to their home the routine procedures for a Policing stop were escalated. The Police found themselves in a situation where they had to pursue and were confronted with surly and agitated people. They needed to contain the situation before de-escalating it to minimise the risk of harm. An example I can give is in prison if we have to end a hostage situation by force or it ends peaceably we still would search and restrain all involved including the believed hostages. We would do this as they may be “in on it”.
As to why they were initially required to stop maybe we will never know because experience and Police intelligence may suggest that in that area a criminal element may be using a similar vehicle and they would prejudice ongoing policing.
The crux of the issue for me is that it is a situation of their own making. Whoever thought it a good idea to make off from the Police when asked to stop? That is never going to end well.
What I picked up from the clip (edited) and other things Ms Williams and partner have said is that by evading the initial attempt at a stop and driving to their home the routine procedures for a Policing stop were escalated. The Police found themselves in a situation where they had to pursue and were confronted with surly and agitated people. They needed to contain the situation before de-escalating it to minimise the risk of harm. An example I can give is in prison if we have to end a hostage situation by force or it ends peaceably we still would search and restrain all involved including the believed hostages. We would do this as they may be “in on it”.
As to why they were initially required to stop maybe we will never know because experience and Police intelligence may suggest that in that area a criminal element may be using a similar vehicle and they would prejudice ongoing policing.
The crux of the issue for me is that it is a situation of their own making. Whoever thought it a good idea to make off from the Police when asked to stop? That is never going to end well.
wjb said:
Pip1968 said:
wjb said:
Red 4 said:
You should read Earthdweller's post
You lost me there... The bottom line is if you want to make changes to support your agenda more blacks must procreate with whites and more blacks should be encouraged by their own kind to join the police. Moreover those joining should not be mistreated by their own kind. Shouting racist is not going to fix anything.
Pip
You with your agenda are not solving anything. I proposed a solution to make changes to perceived racism from the inside. All the time blacks stay separate from whites the accusations will continue. As a minority it is about integration and if you are the outsider or minority you need to make the effort.
Hopefully a little clearer for you.
Pip
biggbn said:
So, a well researched, accurate article then 
It’s from Ben Bowling and Coretta Phillips ( feel free to look them up ) who I don’t think are particularly pro-Police and is excerpts from a much larger piece of work published in the Modern Law Review Take from it what you will, but it’s written by a professor in criminology and Criminal justice and a senior lecturer in social policy and criminology
Earthdweller said:
biggbn said:
So, a well researched, accurate article then
It’s from Ben Bowling and Coretta Phillips ( feel free to look them up ) who I don’t think are particularly pro-Police and is excerpts from a much larger piece of work published in the Modern Law Review Take from it what you will, but it’s written by a professor in criminology and Criminal justice and a senior lecturer in social policy and criminology
Pip1968 said:
Now you are lost and are not following me. My point is not about "fault" it is about a solution. Shouting racist is not solving anything. You say up and they say down you say right and they say left. You say black and they say white and so it goes on...... and on .... and on.
You with your agenda are not solving anything. I proposed a solution to make changes to perceived racism from the inside. All the time blacks stay separate from whites the accusations will continue. As a minority it is about integration and if you are the outsider or minority you need to make the effort.
Hopefully a little clearer for you.
Pip
I don't have an agenda, I came onto this an other forums as there was a few discussions over race that I felt I could contribute to. You with your agenda are not solving anything. I proposed a solution to make changes to perceived racism from the inside. All the time blacks stay separate from whites the accusations will continue. As a minority it is about integration and if you are the outsider or minority you need to make the effort.
Hopefully a little clearer for you.
Pip
All I've seen is "blacks are criminals" x1000
You say "perceived racism" like it doesn't exist, then admit to receiving racist texts from friends.
Not sure why you think "blacks are separate to whites" maybe in your mind, but that isn't the case.
And as an "outsider" I need to make the effort do I?
You can't stop taking s
t can you? Have a nice weekend.
wjb said:
All I've seen is "blacks are criminals" x1000
If that's all you've understood, then you or your comprehension is fatally blinkered...in probably a very similar way to the 'establishment' that you seem to blame for everything.Therefore, I'm out!
Edited by mmm-five on Saturday 11th July 12:18
wjb said:
1. All I've seen is "blacks are criminals" x1000
2. Not sure why you think "blacks are separate to whites" maybe in your mind, but that isn't the case.
1. Who said that and when ?2. Not sure why you think "blacks are separate to whites" maybe in your mind, but that isn't the case.
2. Segregation is still common place in this country whether you like it or not.
You might like to think that we live in one big, happy, multi cultural society where everyone is 100% tolerant of everyone else. Unfortunately we don't.
And that intolerance, IME, works both ways. Black, white, brown, green with polkadot spots.
It doesn't even have to be race that people get divided over. Some people (gangs) will fight because they live in different postcodes.
If you think people don't separate or identify with different groups then you are deluded.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff