Crosswords2 mins ago
More London Killings
44 Answers
http://
And the killings go on, should the police now conduct random stop and searches, with very strict sentences imposed on those found carrying weapons, or are they scared of being accused as racist?
And the killings go on, should the police now conduct random stop and searches, with very strict sentences imposed on those found carrying weapons, or are they scared of being accused as racist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And I am saying, AoG, that your use of grammar and the language requires some significant improvement. Your OP talks about the police conducting "random stop and searches".You do understand what the term random means, I take it?
That phrase of random stop and search has a completely different meaning from the implementation of a targeted, intelligence lead stop and search process. And even when they set a targeted process, they should not just stop all random black males - they need to have a reasonable suspicion that the person they are stopping is a member of a gang.
Only where the police can demonstrate they are using a targeted, intelligence led stop and search programme could it be considered a fair and proportionate response - that certainly does not mean pulling over random black males, on the grounds that they were "aggressively black"
It bears repeating - Constable Savage deserves yet another airing....
That phrase of random stop and search has a completely different meaning from the implementation of a targeted, intelligence lead stop and search process. And even when they set a targeted process, they should not just stop all random black males - they need to have a reasonable suspicion that the person they are stopping is a member of a gang.
Only where the police can demonstrate they are using a targeted, intelligence led stop and search programme could it be considered a fair and proportionate response - that certainly does not mean pulling over random black males, on the grounds that they were "aggressively black"
It bears repeating - Constable Savage deserves yet another airing....
I can never win where colour is concerned, even when I try to seek a solution to this black on black slaughter, I am criticised.
Most of you know that where colour is concerned the police have to constantly step on broken glass, in case there is a inquiry leading to them being at risk of them losing their jobs.
Perhaps what would be a solution is for the black communities to be policed by mainly black officers, whatever the solution one must be found to stop these black murders.
Most of you know that where colour is concerned the police have to constantly step on broken glass, in case there is a inquiry leading to them being at risk of them losing their jobs.
Perhaps what would be a solution is for the black communities to be policed by mainly black officers, whatever the solution one must be found to stop these black murders.
But they are already being accused of being racist, when the majority they SAS (stop and Search) are black they called racist, when told it's the majority that run drugs and gangs, they're being racist. A friend of ours when asking a group of black lads for help in catching a murderer, the oldest in the group sucked his teeth an scowled 'I and I will tell you nuffin' man', so the police appeal to community leaders and CCTV and then get told your not doing enough. How does it end?
"Most of you know that where colour is concerned the police have to constantly step on broken glass, in case there is a inquiry leading to them being at risk of them losing their jobs."
This is spot on AOG, and one of the main reasons the Stop Search stats are inaccurate and not a true reflection of really goes on.
This is spot on AOG, and one of the main reasons the Stop Search stats are inaccurate and not a true reflection of really goes on.
LazyGun
/// And I am saying, AoG, that your use of grammar and the language requires some significant improvement. Your OP talks about the police conducting "random stop and searches".You do understand what the term random means, I take it? ///
I don't need the likes of you to criticise my use of grammar or that my language requires any significant improvement.
I have already took the time to explain to you what random means and if you still cannot understand, then that is down to your lack or willingness of understanding.
For your unnecessary rude comments, I will no longer take the time or the bother to debate with you.
/// And I am saying, AoG, that your use of grammar and the language requires some significant improvement. Your OP talks about the police conducting "random stop and searches".You do understand what the term random means, I take it? ///
I don't need the likes of you to criticise my use of grammar or that my language requires any significant improvement.
I have already took the time to explain to you what random means and if you still cannot understand, then that is down to your lack or willingness of understanding.
For your unnecessary rude comments, I will no longer take the time or the bother to debate with you.
-- answer removed --
But you do not get to re-define what random means, AoG. Random already has a well-defined and well understood meaning.
You often do this - post something, get criticised, then whine that the critics have misunderstood your meaning. It most cases, this is incorrect- it is not right that you criticise the respondents when your grammar is at fault.
You seem pathologically averse to offering an apology for the confusion you cause with your casual or imprecise use of the language however, preferring to play the victim card and whine about the attacks of the critics....
You often do this - post something, get criticised, then whine that the critics have misunderstood your meaning. It most cases, this is incorrect- it is not right that you criticise the respondents when your grammar is at fault.
You seem pathologically averse to offering an apology for the confusion you cause with your casual or imprecise use of the language however, preferring to play the victim card and whine about the attacks of the critics....
// Anything other than agreement with his dubious assertions and assumptions seems to result in him becoming rather pathetically antagonistic, self important or simply 'flouncing' //
Which I find rather endearing. When he took a break early ladt year, the News section was lacking something. He serves a function, and we do need him.
Which I find rather endearing. When he took a break early ladt year, the News section was lacking something. He serves a function, and we do need him.
But, gromit, the Evening Standard is, in fact, owned by a Russian millionaire who also owns The Independent. It would indeed be news if a person with a 25 per cent holding had any influence on it the company. 25 % is not enough to stop the 75%, or a majority holding, doing anything it likes, in practice, and can be, and will be, disregarded.
Don't blame aog if you phrase your responses in such a way that they are understood to suggest something you never intended and which you think nobody else would understand differently, either. That's just poor draftsmanship. We all have to be alive to every construction. And we should remember that words change their ordinary meaning over time; indeed that may be a surprisingly short time.
What is the current meaning of random?
What is the current meaning of random?
Fredpuli,
Associated Newspapers owned the London Evening Standard for decades before Ledved took control 4 years ago. The Daily Mail group did not sell it outright and own just less of 25% of the company. True, they do not have a controlling interest, but they do still have an interest. They weren't going to allow it to become a Pravda London Edition because no one would by that (or Advertise as it is a freesheet). The paper, editorially has not really changed and is still a London local Edition of the Daily Mail.
Associated Newspapers owned the London Evening Standard for decades before Ledved took control 4 years ago. The Daily Mail group did not sell it outright and own just less of 25% of the company. True, they do not have a controlling interest, but they do still have an interest. They weren't going to allow it to become a Pravda London Edition because no one would by that (or Advertise as it is a freesheet). The paper, editorially has not really changed and is still a London local Edition of the Daily Mail.
