BritPat Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 The overepresentation of young black men is a product of a system of which the report you quote from says - ''a damning 2008 European Court of Human Rights judgement. It found the England and Wales system manifestly discriminatory and unfair'' so, no, I'm not particularly happy with the figures. The Police should be a lot more even handed, just because a victim reports his mugger as being Black the wooden tops will go assuming that they should stop Blacks, absolutely outrageous they should be stopping Chinese women and Pakistani children ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 You've answered that yourself. Because there's a justification for what they are doing.There's also a justification for a Muslim man being married to more than one woman, so why should only one of his wives be recognized as being legal under UK law? Or perhaps that isn't the case, perhaps it's as Barrenness Warsi claims. That the UK policy makers recognize that polygamous marriages are on the increase but turn a blind eye to it because of the sensitive nature of the issue. Posted by Cyclone Although you should note that concealing your face isn't a crime for anyone, anywhere. What would happen if I decided to dress like phone-jacker? What would happen if I was to refuse when a copper told me to remove the balaclava I was wearing? What would happen if I continually refused requests to remove my balaclava in public places? Posted by Cyclone I spent an entire weekend carrying a fixed blade knife on my belt a few weeks back, the reason was that we were hiking and camping and I'd have been happy to explain that if a police officer had asked why it was there. Where is it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 What would happen if I decided to dress like phone-jacker? What would happen if I was to refuse when a copper told me to remove the balaclava I was wearing? What would happen if I continually refused requests to remove my balaclava in public places? Refusing to co-operate with the police might well get you arrested I suppose, but Cyclone is quite correct in saying that it's not illegal to cover your face. Are you suggesting that you think it should be illegal? I don't understand where you're coming from here. Where is it now? How is it in any way relevant to ask where Cyclone keeps his knife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 Refusing to co-operate with the police might well get you arrested I suppose, but Cyclone is quite correct in saying that it's not illegal to cover your face.But I'd be doing nothing wrong by dressing like phone-jacker would I?, so I shouldn't need to cooperate as the police have no reason to stop me... do they? Posted by Halibut Are you suggesting that you think it should be illegal? I don't understand where you're coming from here. Not necessarily illegal, but I don't see why any religious or cultural customs that someone might have should exempt them from compulsory legislative policies and security measures. Posted by Halibut How is it in any way relevant to ask where Cyclone keeps his knife? It's relevant because Sikhs and Scotsman to a lesser degree, are permitted to keep theirs on their person regardless of where they might be or what they might be doing, but since Cyclone stated that he was carrying his knife for a specific reason- which was because he was walking and camping, I'm interested to know where it is now, for all I know it could be down his sock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 But I'd be doing nothing wrong by dressing like phone-jacker would I?, so I shouldn't need to cooperate as the police have no reason to stop me... do they? Not solely on the grounds of having your face covered no, of course not. They need to have reason to believe you were up to no good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Not solely on the grounds of having your face covered no, of course not. They need to have reason to believe you were up to no good. The fact that one has ones face covered in the absence of imminent danger from frost bite would lead a police officer to reasonably believe that one was up to something ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 But I'd be doing nothing wrong by dressing like phone-jacker would I?, so I shouldn't need to cooperate as the police have no reason to stop me... do they? Not necessarily illegal, but I don't see why any religious or cultural customs that someone might have should exempt them from compulsory legislative policies and security measures. It's relevant because Sikhs and Scotsman to a lesser degree, are permitted to keep theirs on their person regardless of where they might be or what they might be doing, but since Cyclone stated that he was carrying his knife for a specific reason- which was because he was walking and camping, I'm interested to know where it is now, for all I know it could be down his sock. Wonder what these were meaning to do with their knives, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024358/UK-RIOTS-2011-Sikhs-defend-temple-locals-protect-pubs-Britons-defy-rioters.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Wonder what these were meaning to do with their knives, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024358/UK-RIOTS-2011-Sikhs-defend-temple-locals-protect-pubs-Britons-defy-rioters.html Defend themselves and their properties against rioters, as they've every right to do. Good on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 Not solely on the grounds of having your face covered no, of course not. They need to have reason to believe you were up to no good. Then why do CPO's routinely stop the wearers of hoodies and goggle jackets if all they're doing is concealing their faces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 The fact that one has ones face covered in the absence of imminent danger from frost bite would lead a police officer to reasonably believe that one was up to something ! It might indeed. So if one had one's face covered because one was intent on mischief, fair play if the police want a word - and if it's for some other reason, no problem their either, since it's not an offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.