Stop and Search
Discussion
We are all aware of this police procedure, or whatever you want to call it, and whether it works or not is open to discussion....
However, listening to Radio 5Live with Nicky Campbell this morning on the way to work I got very wound up by this guy that had been the "Victim" of one of these situations.
This guy lived in a high crime area and the police were openly promoting the fact that they were trying to cut the number of black on black shootings, they had gone up by 50% or something.
Now this guy, who was "black and owned a nice car" as he put it was stopped and searched by a number of armed police outside his house, he was complaining that the only reason they did it was because he was "black and owned a nice car", err....yes and!!!!
This was the whole point, the police are trying to curb the growing violence between black on black, and this guy would have been all for it you would think but instead used this incident as a sounding board for racism.
The fact is if he had done nothing wrong he should be all for this, if it stopped this needless violence in his neighbourhood. I do not understand why he had to turn it into a negative situation.
I want to point out that in no way do I understand what racism really means, its effect on a young black or Asian men or woman growing up in today's society, no matter how much I try I simply cannot imagine. I can only think this kind of pointless soap box mentality takes two steps backwards towards any understanding between police, minorities and the public looking on, ie me.
This guy also said "because I have a nice car the Police think I must be a drug dealer and act accordingly", well maybe they do maybe they don’t (there are blacks in the police force now mate), but they will never know if they don’t pull you over. I wonder if he would feel different if his wife, who was with him, was killed by a stray bullet fired by gangs trying to control their turf?
He also said he talked to his black friends who have equally privileged lives, and drive nice cars and they also suffered from this obvious police racism, I wonder if they live in the same area? He then went on to say he asked some white colleagues if they suffered the same, and surprise surprise they didn’t.
As always in this sensitive politically correct society I do not mean any ill feeling towards anyone, writing something like this is so hard as you struggle to use the right words, using the word "black" or "minority" fills me with confusing signals as to whether it is "racist" or not. Well I am not racist, but I get angry when people use these situations negatively and will only harm future generations of kids growing up in an already unbalanced society.
There finished, I am open to anyone who can convince me what that guy has done did nothing but damage any kind of good relations, we all know that no one likes being pulled over or stopped by the police.
However, listening to Radio 5Live with Nicky Campbell this morning on the way to work I got very wound up by this guy that had been the "Victim" of one of these situations.
This guy lived in a high crime area and the police were openly promoting the fact that they were trying to cut the number of black on black shootings, they had gone up by 50% or something.
Now this guy, who was "black and owned a nice car" as he put it was stopped and searched by a number of armed police outside his house, he was complaining that the only reason they did it was because he was "black and owned a nice car", err....yes and!!!!
This was the whole point, the police are trying to curb the growing violence between black on black, and this guy would have been all for it you would think but instead used this incident as a sounding board for racism.
The fact is if he had done nothing wrong he should be all for this, if it stopped this needless violence in his neighbourhood. I do not understand why he had to turn it into a negative situation.
I want to point out that in no way do I understand what racism really means, its effect on a young black or Asian men or woman growing up in today's society, no matter how much I try I simply cannot imagine. I can only think this kind of pointless soap box mentality takes two steps backwards towards any understanding between police, minorities and the public looking on, ie me.
This guy also said "because I have a nice car the Police think I must be a drug dealer and act accordingly", well maybe they do maybe they don’t (there are blacks in the police force now mate), but they will never know if they don’t pull you over. I wonder if he would feel different if his wife, who was with him, was killed by a stray bullet fired by gangs trying to control their turf?
He also said he talked to his black friends who have equally privileged lives, and drive nice cars and they also suffered from this obvious police racism, I wonder if they live in the same area? He then went on to say he asked some white colleagues if they suffered the same, and surprise surprise they didn’t.
As always in this sensitive politically correct society I do not mean any ill feeling towards anyone, writing something like this is so hard as you struggle to use the right words, using the word "black" or "minority" fills me with confusing signals as to whether it is "racist" or not. Well I am not racist, but I get angry when people use these situations negatively and will only harm future generations of kids growing up in an already unbalanced society.
There finished, I am open to anyone who can convince me what that guy has done did nothing but damage any kind of good relations, we all know that no one likes being pulled over or stopped by the police.
Sounds like a no-win situation for the Police. They are trying to address a specific situation where there is a problem with black gang warfare. The perpetrators are black, the victims are black so you can't say there is any racial motivation there. Who else are the Police supposed to stop and search? There's not a lot of point pulling over a white lesbian disabled nun, is there?
If they pull over a black motorist, they're racist. If they do nothing about it and another black person gets shot, then they're racist because they're not doing anything to stop black people getting shot. If a white gang was going round shooting other white people, the Police would stop white motorists in the area. By this definition, this is also racist.
What side was Campbell on during this debate? If his pathetic attitude on Watchdog is anything to go by, I suspect he thought it was racist too. When the missus is watching Watchdog, I have to leave the room because he really does piss me off!
If they pull over a black motorist, they're racist. If they do nothing about it and another black person gets shot, then they're racist because they're not doing anything to stop black people getting shot. If a white gang was going round shooting other white people, the Police would stop white motorists in the area. By this definition, this is also racist.
What side was Campbell on during this debate? If his pathetic attitude on Watchdog is anything to go by, I suspect he thought it was racist too. When the missus is watching Watchdog, I have to leave the room because he really does piss me off!
tend to agree pigme, something which I see on a daily basis though which makes me wonder is the 'stereotype' image black youths persist in adopting. I am prepared to get the usual 'racist' lambasting for this and quite frankily could care less.
What style of car was the guy driving, was it a beemer with bling bling wheels, did he have baggies and a bb hat on back to front? I see this 'gangsta' style of fashion being worn by youths and wonder how the hell the BiB can tell who is a 'badun' and who isn't. I would suggest that the real crims dress like a lawyer and drive a Saab and if I thought there was a 'look' that suggested any connection with gansters I would shy away from it. If the guy in question's nice car was a Saab then, yes, he's right to be pissed off.
What style of car was the guy driving, was it a beemer with bling bling wheels, did he have baggies and a bb hat on back to front? I see this 'gangsta' style of fashion being worn by youths and wonder how the hell the BiB can tell who is a 'badun' and who isn't. I would suggest that the real crims dress like a lawyer and drive a Saab and if I thought there was a 'look' that suggested any connection with gansters I would shy away from it. If the guy in question's nice car was a Saab then, yes, he's right to be pissed off.
Err...I think you have got this slightly wrong, the guy seems to be pissed off that he was stopped because he was black. It sounds to me that he had every right to be very pissed off.
Being black is not a reason to be searched by armed police. They should need more than this I.E if his car fitted the descrption of one used in a crime or someone fitting his descrption (not colour only, but height weight, clothes etc) was seen near the scean of a crime no probs but to stop him because he is black is not on.
Imagine you were questioned daily by the police every time a robbery happened in your area because you were white, it would piss you off in a big way. I imagine that being questioned and searched by armed police would be very disturbing and scary.
I grew up in an area with a lot of crime and as a child I was always being stopped by the police for crimes that "some kids matching your descrption" had committed, and I can tell you it was not nice, I was quite often ruffed up, and it was never a polite would you mind helping us with our enquiries. Not to mention the embarrassment factor of being searched by police on the road you live on a weekly basis when all you are doing is riding your bike.
If he is being stopped due to the colour of his skin then the motives behind the stop and search are racist.
You might as well round up the millions of blacks in the country and question them all that way the crooks will not get away? Or you could tag them all then you would know who was committing the crimes and be able to round them up
.
I may have not explained my argument very well this time, but I am against this type of police tactic.
If a drugs crime was commited by a women you would not see the police stopping every women in a nice car and searching them at gun point. It would just not wash.
Being black is not a reason to be searched by armed police. They should need more than this I.E if his car fitted the descrption of one used in a crime or someone fitting his descrption (not colour only, but height weight, clothes etc) was seen near the scean of a crime no probs but to stop him because he is black is not on.
Imagine you were questioned daily by the police every time a robbery happened in your area because you were white, it would piss you off in a big way. I imagine that being questioned and searched by armed police would be very disturbing and scary.
I grew up in an area with a lot of crime and as a child I was always being stopped by the police for crimes that "some kids matching your descrption" had committed, and I can tell you it was not nice, I was quite often ruffed up, and it was never a polite would you mind helping us with our enquiries. Not to mention the embarrassment factor of being searched by police on the road you live on a weekly basis when all you are doing is riding your bike.
If he is being stopped due to the colour of his skin then the motives behind the stop and search are racist.
You might as well round up the millions of blacks in the country and question them all that way the crooks will not get away? Or you could tag them all then you would know who was committing the crimes and be able to round them up
. I may have not explained my argument very well this time, but I am against this type of police tactic.
If a drugs crime was commited by a women you would not see the police stopping every women in a nice car and searching them at gun point. It would just not wash.
I agree with your point to an extent, this was a special case, but generally I believe the police discriminate when stoping individuals in cars, whether on purpose or not.
an example, my friend and I both drive very very similar cars, alloy wheels, old Golf GTI's modified etc. Neither of us drive particularly fast or differently. However I have been stopped in London a grand total of zero times (and infact have never been stopped in my life).
My friend, on the other hand, gets stopped on average about 3-4times a week!! This is nothing short of ridiculous, and wadya know, he's black.
Just my 2p.
an example, my friend and I both drive very very similar cars, alloy wheels, old Golf GTI's modified etc. Neither of us drive particularly fast or differently. However I have been stopped in London a grand total of zero times (and infact have never been stopped in my life).
My friend, on the other hand, gets stopped on average about 3-4times a week!! This is nothing short of ridiculous, and wadya know, he's black.
Just my 2p.
The main problem in all of this is very similar to the objections people have about speeding. What they want is for the Police to protect their own interests without inconveniencing them in the process. The guy on the campbell show would probably have supported the attempts by the MET to curb the black on black shootings and other black on black crime that is prevalent in the area. He just used the same logic as those who agree about speed limits being imposed on everyone but themselves.
Cases like the Lawrence crime have highlighted serious flaws in not only the way investigations were carried out in the past but have also highlighted what was an undesirable culture within a large predominently white state authority. Rightly so and things have moved on in huge steps since the Lawrence Enquiry was published.
There is no doubt that individulas within the Police service still hold racist sexist and other ...ist views which are completely beyond the control of any policy or procedure or even law if they are secretly harboured. Policy actually states that it is not an offence against discipline to hold these views or beliefs because no one can possibly know if they do or not. What Policy and procedure and the law now state is that if anyone demonstrates these feelings through an action or other medium, then they will be dealt with seriously for them. Even those who still hold severe racist views are aware of these policies and are foolish in the extreme if they let them show.
At the same time the Lawrence report came out, the method and standard of Police disciplinary hearings was changed from that of 'beyond reasonable doubt' as in criminal proceedings to that of 'the balance of probablilites' as in civil proceedings.
This gave Police officers the impression that they were all branded as institutionally racists because the Govt said so and senior officers accepted that branding universally, even though there was no real hard evidence to show this other than 'the canteen culture' which was very rapidly curtailed by management.
With a publicised acceptance by senior Police managers that 'the Police were racist' the bobby on the beat had to re-think his whole policy towards the way in which he/she worked effectively or even continued to be able to work at all.
To be accused of a racist discipline or criminal offence maliciously could result in a hearing on the balance of probablity about continuing employment within the service. Two or three witnesses to a malicious complaint against a single officer on the balance of probablity was likely that it was in fact proved.
Stop and search instances then rapidly declined as no one was willing to offer themselves on the sacrificial plate of institutional racism on the pre-text that the MET or other force could expunge their racists in a triumphant demonstration of obtaining public support in the efforts to rid themselves of these damaging elements.
This was a big opportunity for those involved in crime who happen to belong to any ethnic minority gropup. They knew they would not be touched. The Govt and senior Police management had given them impunity to do whatever they liked without fear of interuption.
Stop and search is a devastating weapon to those that are involved in criminal activity if it is done properly. There is no doubt that it now has to be done this way because the Govt and Home Office have instructed Police to inform everyone who is stopped and searched under Section 1 PACE 1984, what the regulations say can actually and must actually happen and the guidelines that have to be used by Police when they are forming the opinion that someoe should be searched. Police even now give the relevant person (the searched person) a form explaining all the facts about how stop and search should be carried out and what elements can be used together to give the Police a power to carry the search out.
This has had a profound effect on both those that do the stopping and searching and those that are subject to the search such as the chap who was stopped i his nice car and interviewed by Campbell.
Police can not afford to stop and search anyone without the proper grounds for doing so. They actively encourage the stopped person to challenge these grounds if they can by giving them the information they require to do so at the time of the search.
This means that there should not be any further racist stops as suggested by the guy in the nice car. Even if the officer holds underlying racist views, if he uses them to effect a search under this procedure and cannot give the correct grounds for his search, then he will be proudly paraded by Police Management of an example to regain some public confidence in the ability to show that Policing is no longer racist.
Banging the Race drum, will, and is becoming harder and harder for those who despise authority that are charged with enforcing law of any descrption.
That cannot be a bad situation for everyone, white black or pink with green spots!!!
Cases like the Lawrence crime have highlighted serious flaws in not only the way investigations were carried out in the past but have also highlighted what was an undesirable culture within a large predominently white state authority. Rightly so and things have moved on in huge steps since the Lawrence Enquiry was published.
There is no doubt that individulas within the Police service still hold racist sexist and other ...ist views which are completely beyond the control of any policy or procedure or even law if they are secretly harboured. Policy actually states that it is not an offence against discipline to hold these views or beliefs because no one can possibly know if they do or not. What Policy and procedure and the law now state is that if anyone demonstrates these feelings through an action or other medium, then they will be dealt with seriously for them. Even those who still hold severe racist views are aware of these policies and are foolish in the extreme if they let them show.
At the same time the Lawrence report came out, the method and standard of Police disciplinary hearings was changed from that of 'beyond reasonable doubt' as in criminal proceedings to that of 'the balance of probablilites' as in civil proceedings.
This gave Police officers the impression that they were all branded as institutionally racists because the Govt said so and senior officers accepted that branding universally, even though there was no real hard evidence to show this other than 'the canteen culture' which was very rapidly curtailed by management.
With a publicised acceptance by senior Police managers that 'the Police were racist' the bobby on the beat had to re-think his whole policy towards the way in which he/she worked effectively or even continued to be able to work at all.
To be accused of a racist discipline or criminal offence maliciously could result in a hearing on the balance of probablity about continuing employment within the service. Two or three witnesses to a malicious complaint against a single officer on the balance of probablity was likely that it was in fact proved.
Stop and search instances then rapidly declined as no one was willing to offer themselves on the sacrificial plate of institutional racism on the pre-text that the MET or other force could expunge their racists in a triumphant demonstration of obtaining public support in the efforts to rid themselves of these damaging elements.
This was a big opportunity for those involved in crime who happen to belong to any ethnic minority gropup. They knew they would not be touched. The Govt and senior Police management had given them impunity to do whatever they liked without fear of interuption.
Stop and search is a devastating weapon to those that are involved in criminal activity if it is done properly. There is no doubt that it now has to be done this way because the Govt and Home Office have instructed Police to inform everyone who is stopped and searched under Section 1 PACE 1984, what the regulations say can actually and must actually happen and the guidelines that have to be used by Police when they are forming the opinion that someoe should be searched. Police even now give the relevant person (the searched person) a form explaining all the facts about how stop and search should be carried out and what elements can be used together to give the Police a power to carry the search out.
This has had a profound effect on both those that do the stopping and searching and those that are subject to the search such as the chap who was stopped i his nice car and interviewed by Campbell.
Police can not afford to stop and search anyone without the proper grounds for doing so. They actively encourage the stopped person to challenge these grounds if they can by giving them the information they require to do so at the time of the search.
This means that there should not be any further racist stops as suggested by the guy in the nice car. Even if the officer holds underlying racist views, if he uses them to effect a search under this procedure and cannot give the correct grounds for his search, then he will be proudly paraded by Police Management of an example to regain some public confidence in the ability to show that Policing is no longer racist.
Banging the Race drum, will, and is becoming harder and harder for those who despise authority that are charged with enforcing law of any descrption.
That cannot be a bad situation for everyone, white black or pink with green spots!!!
To be honest, I think most people who are randomly stopped will moan about it and cite some prejudicial reason for it,
is it coz i iz black/white/oriental/martian
is it coz i ave a well wicked phat-modded car
is it coz my zorst is too big
is it coz my zorst is too loud
is it cos your a fascist
is it cos your jealous
is it cos i ave mari-jwanna fumes billowing outta me ride
is it coz i iz black/white/oriental/martian
is it coz i ave a well wicked phat-modded car
is it coz my zorst is too big
is it coz my zorst is too loud
is it cos your a fascist
is it cos your jealous
is it cos i ave mari-jwanna fumes billowing outta me ride
Ok, but if the police have admited that the reason he was stoped is because he is black, then there is no question that the motive is race(colour) related.
And it sounds like he was not even suspected of a specific crime. The police were just out pulling black people for being black and they were using the "black on black" crime prevention as reason.
This is clearly racist as the only reason for the stop and search was race. There was no other indication that a crime was commited, in fact there was not even a crime in question. I mean come on.
Can we start pulling all sports car drivers in a bid to stop "speeding" even if the car is traveling within the speed limit ? can we justify it by saying it is a bid to stop "speed related crime" ? No you would not stand for it, so should a law abiding man be searched at gun point, because his skin is black ?
And it sounds like he was not even suspected of a specific crime. The police were just out pulling black people for being black and they were using the "black on black" crime prevention as reason.
This is clearly racist as the only reason for the stop and search was race. There was no other indication that a crime was commited, in fact there was not even a crime in question. I mean come on.
Can we start pulling all sports car drivers in a bid to stop "speeding" even if the car is traveling within the speed limit ? can we justify it by saying it is a bid to stop "speed related crime" ? No you would not stand for it, so should a law abiding man be searched at gun point, because his skin is black ?
pigme said:
samn01 said:
at gun point
Are you a journalist by chance?
It seems you are dramatising this incident, "armed police" is very different to what you have stated.
I suggest you reread my post.
Its this kind of distortion of the facts that makes things worse.
What were they armed with then ? A cheeky smile
Ok, sorry not meaning to distort the facts, after all I was not there. Although the effect is the same, gun point / gun in holster / in hand pointing at the floor. Same argument, they are just details.
My ex husband was a Policeman. He used to comment that in 95% of cases where he apprehended a black person they would say "You only stopped me because I'm black". Black and ethnic people allegedly make up 19% of the prison population - I say allegedly as this is a difficult statistic to get out of the government. Now is this because they commit more crimes or get caught more often?
read the story here: www.observer.co.uk/race/story/0,11255,901207,00.html
It's the spread of the use of the section 60 that I object to. It just goes to prove that they bring in a law for one reason and then misuse it by applying it to others. It's why we can never allow road pricing using GPS technology. You just can't trust the buggers!
It's the spread of the use of the section 60 that I object to. It just goes to prove that they bring in a law for one reason and then misuse it by applying it to others. It's why we can never allow road pricing using GPS technology. You just can't trust the buggers!
Imagine you were questioned daily by the police every time a robbery happened in your area because you were white, it would piss you off in a big way. I imagine that being questioned and searched by armed police would be very disturbing and scary.
If there was a serious crime problem in my area and the perpetrators were white, drove an Audi, were 6'1, wore a PH fleece or whatever, I would be happy to be stopped and checked. I have nothing to hide.
miniman said:
Imagine you were questioned daily by the police every time a robbery happened in your area because you were white, it would piss you off in a big way. I imagine that being questioned and searched by armed police would be very disturbing and scary.
If there was a serious crime problem in my area and the perpetrators were white, drove an Audi, were 6'1, wore a PH fleece or whatever, I would be happy to be stopped and checked. I have nothing to hide.
If there were a crime problem in my area and I matched the descrption I would expect to be stopped - if I wasn't I would be certain that the criminals weren't going to get stopped either so the crime problem would always be there.
When you have been stopped as long as you don't throw a strop and you act like a reasonable member of society the police will process you fairly quickly and you can be on your way again.
miniman said:
Imagine you were questioned daily by the police every time a robbery happened in your area because you were white, it would piss you off in a big way. I imagine that being questioned and searched by armed police would be very disturbing and scary.
If there was a serious crime problem in my area and the perpetrators were white, drove an Audi, were 6'1, wore a PH fleece or whatever, I would be happy to be stopped and checked. I have nothing to hide.
I had wrote a long reply, but them thought better of it as we obviously have dif opinions on this subject.
I would be interested to hear your opinion on how you are treated the next time you are stopped and searched.
samn01 said: I would be interested to hear your opinion on how you are treated the next time you are stopped and searched.
I take it you mean that I am not in a position to comment as I have not personally been "stopped and searched"? If so, then that is a fair point and I would agree that, as you have been stopped in the past, you have a better knowledge of the reality of it than I do.
However, if someone is mistreated by the Police during a search, isn't that a different matter altogether? If I was treated in a "guilty until proven innocent" kind of way I would probably have something to say about it. But the procedure exists for decent coppers to go about their work using their common sense and intuition. You can't advocate the banning of a procedure because of some rogue elements in the Police force - you have to deal with those elements and let the good guys get on with their jobs using the tools they have available to them.
bruce fielding said: read the story here: www.observer.co.uk/race/story/0,11255,901207,00.html
It's the spread of the use of the section 60 that I object to. It just goes to prove that they bring in a law for one reason and then misuse it by applying it to others. It's why we can never allow road pricing using GPS technology. You just can't trust the buggers!
Now your getting technical.
Section 60 is only allowed to be invoked if an officer of the rank of Inspector or above believes that incidents of serious violence have happened or May happen in his area. The authorisation lasts for 24 hours and he has to authorise this in writing and inform a Superintendant of his decision. The Supt can extend this for another 24 hours and the area has to be designated on a map to cover the area where the violence is likely to occur.
Within that area, ANY PERSON or VEHICLE may be stopped and searched for offensive weapons or sharply pointed or bladed instruments without any grounds other than the authorisation from Section 60 Public Order Act 1986.
Anyone stopped outside the area that is designated for section 60, cannot be searched unless the conditions and grounds for search under Section 1 PACE 1984 are fulfilled
The fact that Section 60 is invoked means that there will have been past problems and there are likely to be future ones.
Section 60 used to be authorised and still is frequently at and around football grounds where there has been history of violence between fans. It is also authorised in areas of high racila tension between Sikh and Muslim factions and in High streets over the weekends where late night theme bars and night clubs have had histories of violence at closing times.
Section 60 Authorisations by Inspectors or higher ranks are always made after careful consideration of all the evidence and intelligence. They can be over ruled by a more senior officer (not chief Inspector) or as stated by Supt or above, if they do not agree with the original decision or increased in area and time. They are not just thrown around willy nilly because the authorising officer thinks it is a good idea to create a little inconvenience to keep the population on their toes.
Think back only to three weeks ago.
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2002 was invoked by the minister of state around Heathrow and the immediate county forces that have flight paths over their jurisdictions.
Section 44 of the Terorism Act is just a bigger version of Section 60 to cover Acts of very serious violence and national security. The powers are virtually the same for the police in both acts. There is no need to give grounds to stop and search persons or vehicles or anything carried by them to find evidence of acts of terror. Just the authoristion is sufficient.
How many complaints were received about the racist Police in these circumstances? Or was it that everyone was sh1tting themselves about a 747 megatop landing in their garden
Anyone stopped and searched under either of these acts is entitled to a written statement within 12 months of the stop if they require it.
Section 60 and Section 44 are used to protect certain sections and areas of the public from serious harm.
Racism has very little to do with it at all!
Ali_D said: When you have been stopped as long as you don't throw a strop and you act like a reasonable member of society the police will process you fairly quickly and you can be on your way again.
The Act (Sect 1 PACE) says that co-operation must be sought in every instance, however, force may be used if that co-operation is denied.
The act also states that the relevant person can only be detained so long as to achieve the search and if it is in public, only outer coat, jacket and gloves can be removed to do so.
Terrorism under Sect 44 Terrorism Act 2002 allows the removal of hat and shoes as well as the above items.
I have been stopped and searched once. It was when I was at uni and to be honest with you I saw nothing wrong with it at all. As someone said before if you have nothing to hide then you shouldnt have a problem. I got pulled over at about 10 pm and by about 10:15 I was on my way. The officers were both polite and stern when they needed to be. Theres no point using he softly softly approach when you are questioning someone as to whether they are carrying or hiding drugs in the car.
Catching criminals is undoubtedly very hard and if by random stop and search there is a chance that you can catch them then why not? Im asian but trust me its not just and asian and black thing. A few of my white friends have been stopped and searched so playing the race card is not only pointless but incorrect. In my opinion and from what I have seen its more to do with the demographic rather then race. If young men in their late teens/early twenties are commiting a higher proportion of crime, then rightly a higher proportion of them should be stopped than anyone else.
Catching criminals is undoubtedly very hard and if by random stop and search there is a chance that you can catch them then why not? Im asian but trust me its not just and asian and black thing. A few of my white friends have been stopped and searched so playing the race card is not only pointless but incorrect. In my opinion and from what I have seen its more to do with the demographic rather then race. If young men in their late teens/early twenties are commiting a higher proportion of crime, then rightly a higher proportion of them should be stopped than anyone else.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff