Acid by now 'weapon of choice' for London street gangs

[hobbsyoyo]

So, given you were getting responses 4 minutes, Katie, after you posted your reports, we can accurately assume that any disagreement over the numbers has been about the numbers that are possible to provide, rather than the numbers provided, since it will have been impossible for anyone to have read your source. So why are we disagreeing about numbers that can be provided, rather than what they are, since that basically stipulates "no argument" about whatever it is you choose to assert the numbers say say in and of their own merits. The argument is a step out, it's not about the numbers. Those are being conceded without contest.

I actually did open the attachment. Twice because I accidentally closed it the first time.

In literally says in big bold words exactly the things Tim has been talking about. It's unavoidable. It's also a series of graphs with one or two sentence conclusions attached to them. It doesn't take more than 4 minutes to get the gist of what they are saying.

 

[Katie88]

So, given you were getting responses 4 minutes, Katie, after you posted your reports, we can accurately assume that any disagreement over the numbers has been about the numbers that are possible to provide, rather than the numbers provided, since it will have been impossible for anyone to have read your source. So why are we disagreeing about numbers that can be provided, rather than what they are, since that basically stipulates "no argument" about whatever it is you choose to assert the numbers say say in and of their own merits. The argument is a step out, it's not about the numbers. Those are being conceded without contest.

In fact, I posted a chart that can be read and understood in a couple of minutes, and provided the link to the source if people want to read in greater depth. But, specifically, I posted them in response to this:

In absolute numbers or as a proportion of their own population? I think you're wrong on both counts but you aren't proving anything by making this unsubstantiated claim so I'm disinclined to put effort into showing it to you otherwise.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, you're all super smart and looked very much more carefully at the data of a complex issue more than you needed to. Kudos.

Nobody is contesting the numbers say what you say they say(though, if anyone wades through the government numbers more than I did, and they don't say black males commit more crimes as a % of their numbers relative to other groups, by all means, wake me up as an across-pond-sheeple). Step out a step. They're saying of course the numbers say what they say. Or they should be, if they aren't. Let's assume they are.

 

[Katie88]

Right, but what arguments can be presented to say that the statistics are wrong beyond, 'Well, I think [insert pet theory here]'? I'm simply making a statement based on the statistics. If people want to disagree based on what they'd prefer to be true, then that's their business.

In response to your edit: the graphic does clearly show that. Blacks are 3 times as likely to be prosecuted for a indictable offences (crimes dealt with by crown courts) as whites, and mixed race people are just over twice as likely; conversely, Asians (from the subcontinent) and Chinese are less likely to be prosecuted.

Now, if someone wants to talk about why blacks are disproportionately involved in crime, then fine. But that's a different discussion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If @Katie88 wants to slavishly follow statistics without considering context, who are we to stop her, really?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Now, if someone wants to talk about why blacks are disproportionately involved in crime, then fine.

It does not say that they are disproportionately involved in crime.
The graphs made the case that blacks are disproportionately prosecuted and convicted for crime.

This is a fundamental distinction that apparently is going right over your head in your rush to equate black with bad. The graphs are intended to show explicitly the biases at work in policing.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm stick man, that's me.

Katie, there's what, and that's trivial. We know the numbers because we believe you and we believe, roughly, the accuracy of the government collecting and reporting them on your behalf. But what is not a conversation to be had without why. What only allows reaction and not always well considered reaction at that.

"White" people smoke a lot of pot in my ol' USA. Higher, per % of population, than "black" people. Yet more black people, per % of population, get smacked with pot charges in my ol' USA. Unless something drastic has shifted and I missed falling on my ass. Why*? Bear in mind, more people get arrested(policing) for pot every year, in my country, than for all violent crimes combined.

*I used the word that explains it earlier, and I am extremely confident it's the right word, but you do have to make sure to remove the erroneous implication of "malice" from it that people like to put in there.

Edit: Seemed unfair of me to make assertions without facts, so I did some reading to make sure I'm not out of date. Surfed through some gubbernmint prose, enthralling as it is, stopped doing that, then decided this summary seems close enough to link as roughly my takeaway - only with clearer and better writers than I making the point. A vast unfairness is documented within, for sure, but amazingly enough, it's a story of heady progress as well. What a difference 30 years can make. Well, how much of a difference I suppose is right there for the quantification.

 

[Katie88]

It does not say that they are disproportionately involved in crime.
The graphs made the case that blacks are disproportionately prosecuted and convicted for crime.

This is a fundamental distinction that apparently is going right over your head in your rush to equate black with bad. The graphs are intended to show explicitly the biases at work in policing.

And why are they prosecuted for and convicted of more crimes per capita? Because they are disproportionately involved in crime. You and others not wanting that to be true changes nothing.

Farm Boy, I'm not 100% sure I understood your post, but it's clear that others don't agree about what, and until that can be at least broadly agreed it isn't possible to begin talking about why.

 

[Borachio]

And why are they prosecuted for and convicted of more crimes per capita? Because they are disproportionately involved in crime.

You wanting this to be true doesn't make it true.

"They are prosecuted for and convicted of more crimes per capita because they are disproportionately interviewed on suspicion by the police" could be equally logical.

You see, your position could be interpreted as black people are just genetically more inclined to crime than white people.

I think you'd agree that that is a rather disagreeable position to take.

 

[Katie88]

The basic problem here is that the statements 'there are biases in the justice system' and 'young black men are disproportionately involved in crime' are not mutually exclusive, and in fact they're both clearly true. What several people want to do is say that the first invalidates the second, blaming 'racism', which, as we all know, is a magic word that lets people pretend inconvenient facts don't exist. The problem is that to make the argument that the difference in prosecution rates is the result of bias, one presumably has to argue that the justice system is biased in favour of Asians and Chinese people, since they are prosecuted less than whites.

 

[Borachio]

So, you're going with Asian and Chinese people have a genetic predisposition not to commit crime?

That's certainly interesting.

 

[Katie88]

Do you always come out with something silly when you can't answer a point?

 

[Borachio]

Nope. I come out with silly things even when I can answer a point.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No-one's said anything about genetics.

Boy, it was only yesterday that I was talking about people claiming others have said something they haven't said being par for the course on here, and here we go again.

What she's actually clearly claiming is that black people commit more crime because they are possessed by demons.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, Katie, I can't do anything about what Tim and Manfred and Borachio and Hobbs say. I've tried before, sometimes, they aren't always right anymore than I am - but, there's a lot of factors at play in order to get your what. We know young men simply by being virtue of young and men predisposes a subsection of the population to committ more crimes than the population at large, toddlers and pensioners and post-menopausal women mixed in. We know that being of low economic status predisposes a subsection of the population to commtt more crime than the population at large, people who have never before pondered stealing infant formula mixed in(Walgreens locks it where I shop. It's literally the only item behind glass in that isle). So, if you take a group, specifically, that is disproportionally young, male, and of low economic status, what do you think you are going to get for numbers? This is seriously a "no duh" what, and it's dumb to fight over either way. One, because duh. Two, because the causes obviously aren't "black." So, saying The Blacks committ more crimes may be true, it is also a misdirection of cause sold to the uncritical. Then fought over by the zealous. It's just not a useful takeaway.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And why are they prosecuted for and convicted of more crimes per capita? Because they are disproportionately involved in crime. You and others not wanting that to be true changes nothing.

Farm Boy, I'm not 100% sure I understood your post, but it's clear that others don't agree about what, and until that can be at least broadly agreed it isn't possible to begin talking about why.

I say it's true thus it is true, despite what my own source says.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And why are they prosecuted for and convicted of more crimes per capita? Because they are disproportionately involved in crime.

Prove it.

That's the error in your thinking that literally everyone has been trying to point out to you, including your own source.

So put up or shut up. Prove it.

 

[Borachio]

Depends on how you define crime, I think.

If you think it's a crime only if it reaches the arrest and possibly prosecution stage, then clearly black people are disproportionately involved in crime.

If you think a crime can still be a crime even if it goes unreported then middle class teenager pot heads are disproportionately involved in crime. Possibly.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Depends on how you define crime, I think.

If you think it's a crime only if it reaches the arrest and possibly prosecution stage, then clearly black people are disproportionately involved in crime.

Well, if you slavishly base your entire world view about crime on crime statistics, then by default this is the definition that you have to go with. This is why white supremacists generally are so intent about trying to stuff the statistics down everyone's throat.

 

[Oerdin]

I'm stick man, that's me.

Katie, there's what, and that's trivial. We know the numbers because we believe you and we believe, roughly, the accuracy of the government collecting and reporting them on your behalf. But what is not a conversation to be had without why. What only allows reaction and not always well considered reaction at that.

"White" people smoke a lot of pot in my ol' USA. Higher, per % of population, than "black" people. Yet more black people, per % of population, get smacked with pot charges in my ol' USA. Unless something drastic has shifted and I missed falling on my ass. Why*? Bear in mind, more people get arrested(policing) for pot every year, in my country, than for all violent crimes combined.

*I used the word that explains it earlier, and I am extremely confident it's the right word, but you do have to make sure to remove the erroneous implication of "malice" from it that people like to put in there.

Edit: Seemed unfair of me to make assertions without facts, so I did some reading to make sure I'm not out of date. Surfed through some gubbernmint prose, enthralling as it is, stopped doing that, then decided this summary seems close enough to link as roughly my takeaway - only with clearer and better writers than I making the point. A vast unfairness is documented within, for sure, but amazingly enough, it's a story of heady progress as well. What a difference 30 years can make. Well, how much of a difference I suppose is right there for the quantification.

Where did you get your pot smoking bumbers from? Also, did you take into account the numerous states where pot is legalized or semi-legalized for medical purposes? In the semi-legalized states (which my own state was up until Jan 1st of this year when it turned into a fully legalized state) as long as you paid to go to a doctor, got a prescription, and then paid a licensing fee then smoking pot was not a crime. If you did smoke pot without doing all of that then it was a crime.

So differential use rates, even if you can show that which I do not think you can, would still have no bearing on if a crime was committed or not. Frankly, you are using a very bad example.