Named members of the raid team - have they pulled the wool over our eyes?

[Hartley]

You missed one out. All Englishmen are perfect.

Oh yeah.  And all Scots drink Irn Bru. 

But apparently I'm wrong, very wrong. 

I think to stereotype in such a way is wrong, very wrong, regardless of individuals personal experiences. Fortunately people with such an uninformed and uneducated, extremist view are in the minority in this country. Thank God! 

[grahameb]

Take note Hartley and don't try and sweep facts under the carpet people are still rascist in great Britain and police officers are rascist even TODAY.
Continue sticking your head in the head and making yourself look stupid. You are not impartial in this case Neil is so I wonder who I would be more likely to take on board points relating to this case.

A further example of our great British police force



   
15.01.12
Updated 16.15


Stop and search 'racial profiling' by police on the increase, claims study
Analysis shows that black people are now 30 times more likely to be stopped by the police than white people

Police perform a stop and search procedure on a group of youths in London.
Mark Townsend, home affairs editor
The Observer, Sat 14 Jan 2012 20.21
Black people are 30 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched by police in England and Wales, according to new analysis which reveals that "racial profiling" has increased over the past year.
Researchers say the findings, based on government statistics, represent the worst international record of discrimination involving stop and search.
The figures refer to the use of section 60, the contentious police power that allows officers to stop and search people without reasonable suspicion and which was cited as an aggravating factor behind the August riots. Analysis by the London School of Economics (LSE) and the Open Society Justice Initiative shows during the past 12 months a black person was 29.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. That figure was 26.6 the previous year.
In 2009, black people were 10.7 times more likely to be stopped than whites under the controversial "exceptional" power. Mounting disquiet over the policy's damaging effect on black communities prompted Scotland Yard last week to announce a scaling back of its use of section 60, which has become a central element of the Yard's anti-knife crime strategy.
A separate analysis, based on Home Office data, reveals that less than 0.5% of section 60 searches led to an arrest for possession of a dangerous weapon, five times fewer than a decade ago.
Dr Michael Shiner, of the campaign group StopWatch and the Mannheim Centre for Criminology at the LSE, said: "More than ever, we need policing to be fair and accountable. All too often impacted communities have complained about abusive police tactics only to be ignored or, worse still, told they are wrong. Searches that do not require individual suspicion are particularly divisive and should be conducted sparingly, if at all.
"The very existence of section 60 should be critically reviewed and, if it is found to be necessary, increased safeguards and strict criteria should be put in place, including judicial authorisation, before the power can be mobilised."
On Friday, the IPCC conceded that stop and searches that yield no arrest were antagonistic and "highly intrusive". A legal challenge that will ask the high court to rule section 60 "incompatible" with the European convention on human rights is under way. The case centres on a 37-year-old woman who claims she was targeted because she was black. Michael Oswald of Bhatt Murphy solicitors said there was clear statistical evidence that section 60 was being used in a discriminatory manner. He added: "There are not sufficient safeguards to ensure that the interference with individuals' personal integrity and liberty that such searches entail is proportionate and in accordance with the law."
The case follows the government's curtailment last year of the police use of section 44 counter-terrorism stop-and-search powers, which also allowed officers to act against individuals without reasonable suspicion. Campaigners hope the home secretary, Theresa May, will pre-empt the legal challenge by moving to amend the law on section 60, introducing restrictions on its use. A recent report by the LSE and the Guardian cited stop and search as a factor in the August riots, a conclusion that persuaded May to order a national review of how police use stop and search powers.
Tomorrow the Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, will give a public lecture on the future of policing at the LSE during which stop and search is expected to be a central theme. Last week he responded to the growing unease by ordering a radical overhaul of the use of section 60 in an effort to improve relations with black and ethnic minority communities.
In particular, Hogan-Howe pledged to halve the amount of section 60 stops that do not require reasonable suspicion. Senior commanders are believed to have voiced concern that they are ineffective and alienate young people, particularly those from ethnic minorities.
Although Hogan-Howe's new stance has been welcomed by campaigners, they point to his record at Merseyside police where he was chief constable from 2004 to 2009. When he began the role, officers conducted 1,389 section 60s, rising to 23,138 within five years.

To be fair to Hartley Jackie he did use the word "all" which puts an entirely different slant on what he posted.

[Hartley]

To be fair to Hartley Jackie he did use the word "all" which puts an entirely different slant on what he posted.

Yes, only an idiot (to quote Mike) could misinterpret what I posted and the problem with getting into an argument with an idiot, is that onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.   

[grahameb]

Clearly all police officers are evil and corrupt, all muslims are terrorists, all black people are lazy and steal, all white people are racist, all Irishmen are drunks, all rich people are conceited snobs, all MP's are crooks, I'm young so I must be naive, all Russians drink vodka, all blondes are stupid, all Essex woman are easy, all female supporters of Jeremy Bamber must fancy him, all people who think Jeremy is guilty is a member of 'the family' and biased, and my own personal favourite: all campaigners and protesters are really quite mad. 

What was that you said about blondes Hartley?

[vidvic]

  This is when the forum works. Hartley puts up an argument and Grahame shoots it down with hard evidence!...... 

[Jackiepreece]

Vidvic

There is no hard evidence is there, that is the point

[Hartley]

Vidvic

There is no hard evidence is there, that is the point

Are we still talking about blondes? Or something else?

[vidvic]

Jackie,

You may be setting world records for 'missing the point'.

It was a joke about the 'blonds' and the following photo.

 

[Jackiepreece]

Grahame

Hartley tried to twist one of my posts the other day trying to make it sound as if I were a rascist

The post I have put up regarding police and racism shows exactly what is going on today and in society.

Not only do police believe it is ok to lie and expect to get away with it, this report shows racism is well and truly alive amongst our police force


Carry on Vidvic your loyalty to your friends is admirable in light of their characters as shown in numerous police statements

[mertol22]

Hartley when the photo comes to light showing EP on the roof of WHF we will talk some more see how you defend that i know you will.

[Hartley]

Grahame

Hartley tried to twist one of my posts the other day trying to make it sound as if I were a rascist

Please show everybody Jackie.

In fact I'll post it myself if you just give me thirty seconds.

[Hartley]

Here ya go.

Yes somebody is doing some twisting, that's for sure. 

[vidvic]

Hartley when the photo comes to light showing EP on the roof of WHF we will talk some more see how you defend that i know you will.

If this picture exists ( and I am inclined to believe it does ) then I am sure that it will be met with a swift official complaint. No family member has seen it and until it surfaced on here, there was no knowledge of it (Them).
However distasteful it (they) may be it has absolutely no bearing on the case.

It is complete nonsense to suggest Hartley suggested anyone was racist. He suggested that what you had INADVERTENTLY said, many many people would consider along the lines of 'I'm not racist, many of my friends are black.'

[Chochokeira]

Didnt they see him visiting the actual flat where the  terrorists were living?

I havent said it was right what the police did, but they have a decision to make based on the evidence they had at that time.

No, an officer on surveillance made a huge error and wrongly identified poor JdM as the terrorist suspect the police were watching. JdM was not the suspect, Andrea. I don't believe he was ever seen visiting a terrorist's home. He wasn't a terrorist. He was just an ordinary person, minding his own business and living his life just as you or I do. JdM could have been any one of us.

As far as I recall, I believe the surveillance team was short staffed and under pressure, officers were at times working alone, which meant if they went to the toilet no one would be watching for the suspect. So the surveillance team could not do their job properly and this led to panic at times and errors in identification.

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley as pointed out by Neil my post did not show I was bigoted

My post today again shows we live in rascist society

I believe the Stephen Lawrence case was not properly investigated because he was black


When I posted my views a few weeks ago as usual Hartley you wanted to cause an argument