Dawn Butler

[Lower]

Why "Not relevant to North Yorkshire"?

Because that was the reason given for the stop!

Best you tell plod that there are no dodgy tykes driving around in nice cars!
(unless they are black of course )

Two different issues here. The car being stopped because of its initially perceived north yorkshire origin i believe would be because the police would suspect it of being a ringed or stolen car.

You asked the relevance of being out of your area. The relevance of being out of your area relates to the gang postcode wars.

 

[Lower]

because lower wants to avoid being ridiculed for the suggestion that "postcode gang warfare" is causing frequent incursions by Yorkshire gangs into specific districts of East London in order to provoke violent street fights and knife crime.

Unfortunately, that is exactly right. Some people, like you and Ellal, will deliberately pick on insignificant, minor points in the overall discussion in an attempt to make the original post look stupid or undermine the argument with irrelevancies or straw man arguments. Consequently, i try to be specific in my posts.

However, my original point stands. Postcode warfare and County lines type drug gangs (which i had forgotten about until sxturbo reminded me) make where you are from and where you are going a perfectly legitimate question for the police to ask.

Dawn Butler's deliberate refusal to answer the policeman's reasonable question (whilst videoing herself to allow the whole world to see the example she has set) is a perfect example of what the police are having to deal with on a daily basis from some sectors of the community, which unfortunately overlaps with those who genuinely are up to no good when they're stopped. All of which makes the police's job that bit harder, wastes their time and reduces the amount of crime that they can prevent.

 

[ellal]

Two different issues here. The car being stopped because of its initially perceived north yorkshire origin i believe would be because the police would suspect it of being a ringed or stolen car.

You asked the relevance of being out of your area. The relevance of being out of your area relates to the gang postcode wars.

Ah, so a black person in a nice car from yorkshire is in a stolen car as far as plod is concerned?

Thanks for clearing that up that racial profiling point...

And anyone 'out of their area' is liable to be stopped regardless of their colour of skin?

I wonder if the yorkshire police behave in the same way?

However I don't reckon I'd have a problem - because I'm not black!

 

[sxturbo]

This definitely never happened

"In a foul-mouthed tirade lasting several minutes, the officer told the teenager he was "going to smash your ****ing Arab face in" and warned him he would be found guilty because "I'll write it up properly". But the exchanges were recorded by the youth on his mobile phone. When they were played in court, the charges against him were dismissed and the judge said he could not believe a word of the police evidence.




The youth, from Bayswater, west London, has a history of run-ins with the police and has a conviction for affray. He has been acquitted on a charge of rape and no further action was taken on an accusation of robbery.




He was stopped by two officers while on the street in west London in February with a friend. The officers told him he was being arrested on a public order offence of using threatening and abusive language to the officers, a claim he strongly disputed.


As he was bundled into the police van, he switched on the tape player on his mobile phone. It captured him asking why he had been picked up, to which the officer replies: "It's because you're a ****ing rapist and I hate you."




As the teenager protests, the officer warns him: "If you say one more ****ing word, I'll smash your ****ing Arab face in. Do you understand?"


He is heard laughing as he says: "You're a ****ing robbing, raping, arsehole." And the officer tells the youth: "You won't swear at me again, sunshine, and this isn't one you won't ****ing get off of at court because I'll write it up properly."


The case came to the West London youth court last Friday, during which the officer and a colleague both gave evidence that the youth used foul language to them. A transcript of the tape was read out to the court and then the recording was played. Checks on the teenager's mobile phone confirmed it had been made at the time of the arrest.


District Judge David Simpson said: "No magistrate, judge or jury could convict on the evidence of these officers. I cannot believe anything these officers have told me. There's a lot of talk about respect and the lack of it. Respect is not something you get by putting on a uniform. I believe respect should be earned."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...leased-after-taping-racist-abuse-5345370.html

Keep clutching at the straws John, a handful of poor cases does not make for a general assumption that all police are bad.

Clearly the officer was wrong in the above story and seemed to have a personal vendetta, however the guy they arrested was hardly a saint and so my sympathy is non existent.

 

[Mottie]

because lower wants to avoid being ridiculed for the suggestion that "postcode gang warfare" is causing frequent incursions by Yorkshire gangs into specific districts of East London in order to provoke violent street fights and knife crime.

Err, when my training business moved from one postcode to another, I lost over half my students as they simply wouldn’t travel into another area so postcode wars are definitely no myth in East London but then you should know that if you are travelling from Greenock in Scotland to East London "a hundred times a year' shouldn’t you?

Anyway, are you going to answer my question from #95 or does your silence say it all?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It could be, but it’s also factual. Trying to shut down the discussion by accusing the person that raises a perfectly valid point of racism or prejudice does not help move things forward.

You have some research to support your assumptions?
If not, it is an assumption, a preconceived conjecture.

If a person makes an assumption and comments on that assumption, based on, seemingly, nothing but prejudice, it is perfectly valid to question the basis of that assumption.
The fact that you don't like being questioned about your assumptions, indicates that your assumptions will not stand up to scrutiny.

Persistently repeating your assumption does not make it factual, it makes you prejudiced. The prejudice also restricts the discussion, and holds it back.
Only when we have proved that the assumption is valid, or dismissed it, can we genuinely move forward. Until then we are basing our discussions on myth and prejudice.

 

[Mottie]

However I don't reckon I'd have a problem - because I'm not black!

Do you sometimes wish you were?

 

[sxturbo]

Ah, so a black person in a nice car from yorkshire is in a stolen car as far as plod is concerned...

Thanks for clearing that up...

And anyone 'out of their area' is liable to be stopped regardless of their colour of skin?

I wonder if the yorkshire police behave in the same way?

However I don't reckon I'd have a problem - because I'm not black!

Again the car had blacked out windows, they didn't know the occupant was black.

What they saw was a nice fancy car in a sh it hole area and because they types the reg in wrong as an accident they thought the car was out of area and fell into the potential county lines category so the car was stopped.

It has naff all to do with colour. Stop trying to make something that wasn't there.

P.s yes Yorkshire police do the same

 

[ellal]

Dawn Butler's deliberate refusal to answer the policeman's reasonable question (whilst videoing herself to allow the whole world to see the example she has set) is a perfect example of what the police are having to deal with on a daily basis from some sectors of the community, which unfortunately overlaps with those who genuinely are up to no good when they're stopped. All of which makes the police's job that bit harder and reduces the amount of crime that they can prevent.

Typical 'victim blaming' strategy when the argument has been lost!

But hey, you can carry on believing that the same thing would have happened if a white person 'from yorkshire' were to be 'out of their area' if it protects you from your prejudices

 

[sxturbo]

Typical 'victim blaming' strategy when the argument has been lost!

But hey, you can carry on believing that the same thing would have happened if a white person 'from yorkshire' were to be 'out of their area' if it protects you from your prejudices

You are terrible at arguments, just because you use the racism word does not mean you automatically win any discussion and makes you appear rather inept at any form of constructive conversation.

You haven't said anything constructive other than "it cos she is black" all you do is say the same thing worded slightly differently with no evidence to back up this up.

 

[Trazor]

This definitely never happened

"In a foul-mouthed tirade lasting several minutes, the officer told the teenager he was "going to smash your ****ing Arab face in" and warned him he would be found guilty because "I'll write it up properly". But the exchanges were recorded by the youth on his mobile phone. When they were played in court, the charges against him were dismissed and the judge said he could not believe a word of the police evidence.




The youth, from Bayswater, west London, has a history of run-ins with the police and has a conviction for affray. He has been acquitted on a charge of rape and no further action was taken on an accusation of robbery.




He was stopped by two officers while on the street in west London in February with a friend. The officers told him he was being arrested on a public order offence of using threatening and abusive language to the officers, a claim he strongly disputed.


As he was bundled into the police van, he switched on the tape player on his mobile phone. It captured him asking why he had been picked up, to which the officer replies: "It's because you're a ****ing rapist and I hate you."




As the teenager protests, the officer warns him: "If you say one more ****ing word, I'll smash your ****ing Arab face in. Do you understand?"


He is heard laughing as he says: "You're a ****ing robbing, raping, arsehole." And the officer tells the youth: "You won't swear at me again, sunshine, and this isn't one you won't ****ing get off of at court because I'll write it up properly."


The case came to the West London youth court last Friday, during which the officer and a colleague both gave evidence that the youth used foul language to them. A transcript of the tape was read out to the court and then the recording was played. Checks on the teenager's mobile phone confirmed it had been made at the time of the arrest.


District Judge David Simpson said: "No magistrate, judge or jury could convict on the evidence of these officers. I cannot believe anything these officers have told me. There's a lot of talk about respect and the lack of it. Respect is not something you get by putting on a uniform. I believe respect should be earned."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...leased-after-taping-racist-abuse-5345370.html

Don't you think as this happened 15 years ago, attitudes may have changed ?

 

[sxturbo]

Don't you think as this happened 15 years ago, attitudes may have changed ?

No it doesn't fit the narrative

 

[dontbelieveawordofit]

I missed that. Do you mean they resisted arrest?

i think the term is ‘failed to stop’

 

[SirGalahad]

In the US some black teenagers sitting at a bus stop were approached by a homeless guy asking for crack, when they said they were not pushers, he got aggressive and attacked them with a knife. Local passers by and a local store owner phone the Police, all stating the same thing. One caller stated the black teenagers were attacking the homeless guy.

The police rolled up and arrested the black teenagers at gunpoint. Instead of assessing the situation they discarded all other calls to focus on the one that said the Black teenagers were at fault - when in fact they were not.

Now this goes back to the original point - do they have a disposition in the US and possibly in the UK where they treat Black people differently - it definitely seems to be the case in the US and quite likely in the UK - now if that assumption is correct -the question is - is this due to poor Police training where they do not take time to assess the situation and when they do instead of saying we made a mistake they double down or is it down to racism?

It may have elements of both but it is hard to separate the issues on the face of it.

 

[sxturbo]

In the US some black teenagers sitting at a bus stop were approached by a homeless guy asking for crack, when they said they were not pushers, he got aggressive and attacked them with a knife. Local passers by and a local store owner phone the Police, all stating the same thing. One caller stated the black teenagers were attacking the homeless guy.

The police rolled up and arrested the black teenagers at gunpoint. Instead of assessing the situation they discarded all other calls to focus on the one that said the Black teenagers were at fault - when in fact they were not.

Now this goes back to the original point - do they have a disposition in the US and possibly in the UK where they treat Black people differently - it definitely seems to be the case in the US and quite likely in the UK - now if that assumption is correct -the question is - is this due to poor Police training where they do not take time to assess the situation and when they do instead of saying we made a mistake they double down or is it down to racism?

It may have elements of both but it is hard to separate the issues on the face of it.

Find something like this relevant to the UK and I'll happily discuss and agree with you.