It is challenging to measure the deterrent effect of policing, because it's always hard to measure things that didn't happen. You can change what the police do in a particular area, and perhaps attribute changes in crime rates to the change in police behaviour.
No, it's pretty easy to measure things that didn't happen, in the sense that we're measuring the number of charges vs the number of crimes. And in 9 out of 10 cases, there are no charges to go with the crime. I'd contend that with crimes like speeding, it's more like 999 out of a 1000.
But okay, the argument is that more visible police presence would prevent crimes happening in the first place. How did that work out on Clapham Common? Given that a member of the public was flashed at yards from a heavy police presence and they refused to even acknowledge it?
I don't think this says quite what you say it does. If, let's say, a habitual shoplifter gets nicked for theft, they may only be charged with the offence for which the police have evidence. If there's no evidence that they committed a load of other thefts ('cause the goods have long since been moved on), nobody's going to get charged for those crimes. But nevertheless, the criminal is in prison.
That's a bad example because most shoplifting is treated as a civil, not criminal matter. Let's say dwelling-house burglaries instead, and this is where I introduce you to the concept of Taken Into Consideration, where the criminal pleads guilty to a whole string of similar offences to get a paradoxically lighter sentence, whether they did them or not.
That dragging sound you hear is the scrape of you moving the goalposts.
You asked what Karl would do, what we would all do.
The answer is absolutely abundantly clear. If you want to stop a suspected suicide bomber from blowing up a train, you don't wait for him to board the actual train. Honestly, the state of this. Really. For shame, Telford. For shame.
Are you blaming me for this man's death ? Is it something I should be ashamed of ?
A normally dressed, unarmed man, not carrying anything to arouse suspicion catches a bus to a tube station and gets on a train. This ‘suspicious’ behaviour leads to him being shot multiple times.
Those following him misidentified him and constructed a wholly mistaken and false narrative about his behaviour.
Those in charge of the operation failed to properly manage the operation from briefing right through to shooting to reduce or avoid the risk of killing a wholly innocent man going about his normal business.
Afterwards there was a consistent attempt to cover up what had happened and to obstruct or prevent an official enquiry.
There was an official enquiry and a full investigation. None of those involved were prosecuted.
You're being blamed for being an apologist for murder. Of course no-one was prosecuted (beyond trivial health and safety violations). The police are almost never prosecuted and certainly never convicted when they murder people while on duty. And people like you are to blame for that, because it's you who make excuses for them, who make it politically viable to let them get away with it, and who form part of juries and so make convictions unobtainable in spite of the evidence.
@telford please read for comprehension. My point was not the event itself but the pack of lies told immediately afterwards to defend the actions. Lies like the victim was wearing a heavy coat which could conceal explosives. Lies like his jumping over a ticker barrier. Are you also going to come running to the defence of lying liars who lie and their lies?
When the Met screw up they lie.
When they screw up, they often panic.
I find it sad that so many people on here are anti police
Anti police ?
That comment made me think a bit because I am not Anti Police.
Not at all and I have worked alongside police in many a happy A/E tea n toast situation.
But at the end of the day I Am wary of police .
Now.
I wasn’t always.
I am now.
I'd contend that with crimes like speeding, it's more like 999 out of a 1000.
Right. But the thing you want to measure is how much speeding is there now vs how much speeding would there be if the "you're going too fast" sign wasn't there, vs how much speeding would there be if the police never stopped people for speeding.
The posted speed limit on the interstate near me is 55 mph. Everyone drives about 70 mph, and everyone knows that they won't be stopped for doing that. People do, on some sort of regular basis, get stopped for going significantly faster than that, which probably keeps a lid on people's excessive speeding.
If there were never police cars lurking on the interstate ready to stop excessive speeders, it wouldn't surprise me if typical top speeds went up 10mph or more, and accident rates would probably follow.
There's evidence that public police clampdowns on drunk driving correlate with fewer accidents, suggesting that that, at least, works.
We all know that the majority of police officers are conscientious and do (on the whole) a pretty good job under what can often be trying circumstances.
We all know (I hope!) that there are always a small minority of bad coppers who twist and abuse the system and then lie about it afterwards.
What we need to acknowledge is that the problem (if we think that there is one - and I do) is with the whole culture of the organisation - which is why some police forces are, on the whole, pretty good and others (especially the Met) have a continuing history of abuse and poor conduct. It is no use pointing to the majority of good coppers if they are working in an organisation which permits or even encourages bad 'uns to get away with it.
In many ways, it is similar to the C of E. Are there plenty of good, hard-working and compassionate priests and bishops in the C of E? Of course there are. But the culture of the organisation/institution is such that, repeatedly over time, priests have committed terrible things and it has been covered up or minimised wherever possible. The culture of the C of E has also made it possible for homophobia, racism and prejudice against "the lower classes" to be regarded as acceptable. Until the culture of the C of E changes, we are unlikely to see significant changes in attitudes and behaviour towards LBGTQ+ et al.
It is the same with the Met (and probably some other forces). Until the culture is changed, no real progress will be made in reducing the number of bad things that happen. And for the culture to change, those at the top need to change. They set and maintain the culture. As long as they are willing to excuse the misbehaviour or even to promote it, nothing of significance will change.
And here is where I do feel a twinge of sympathy (but only a twinge) for Cressida Dick. Trying to change an organisation's culture (especially one that has been ingrained for over 100 years) is no easy task, even if you are determined to do so. When you take on "the System" the chances are that the System will chew you up and spit you out. Having said that, I do feel that Cressida Dick, being so aware of being the first woman in charge of the Met, has adopted the tactic of "I'm just as much a bloke as you are" - which is what a lot of women do when they are the first to reach a certain level in an organisation. Rather than challenge the chauvinistic culture and assumptions, they buy into them in order to prove that they belong where they are.
They don't ensure that the law is obeyed. I walked to the shop earlier today. Pretty much every car that passed me in the 20mph limit was speeding - there's an electronic sign which says how fast they were going - and no one was warned, arrested or given a notice.
Conversely, we all know the phenomenon of a police car cruising down the inside lane of a motorway, and everyone going at 70mph until they're out of sight of the police car. A couple of weeks ago at a junction of two motorways with a 50mph limit, in twilight with light rain and a lot of spray, there was a police car doing 50 and I saw someone pass it, probably doing about 60 or a wee bit more ... instant blue lights on.
fair points, @Rufus T Firefly , but I don't see any evidence that Dame Cressida wants to change the culture of the Met. She didn't have any time for armchair critics when she said 'I don't think anybody should be sitting back in an armchair and saying 'well, that was done badly' '.
(tangent: it's presumably not' OK' to be an 'armchair critic' but what type of being a critic would count as 'not-armchair-and-therefore-OK' ?)
fair points, @Rufus T Firefly , but I don't see any evidence that Dame Cressida wants to change the culture of the Met. She didn't have any time for armchair critics when she said 'I don't think anybody should be sitting back in an armchair and saying 'well, that was done badly' '.
Which ironically goes against the whole notion of policing by consent.
(tangent: it's presumably not' OK' to be an 'armchair critic' but what type of being a critic would count as 'not-armchair-and-therefore-OK' ?)
The typical armchair critic is looking to blame people. When something goes wrong, blame and scapegoats usually aren't helpful. It's usually more constructive to look at what went wrong, and at what could have been done better, to prevent that mistake from happening.
The rest of Dame Cressida's statement was ""They have to make these really difficult calls..." and that people shouldn't judge "without actually understanding what was going through their minds". Which is consistent with "let's have a constructive review and see what could be done better" and also consistent with stonewalling.
Dame Cressida said that she and the officers on Clapham Common found themselves in an invidious position.
She was in effect saying to Priti Patel 'back me or sack me'.
The problem of course is that we cannot possibly know what is going through somebody's mind. Looking over at the United States for a second, I would guess what is going through a lot of cops' minds is, "BLACK PEOPLE BAD! THEY WANT TO KILL ME!" But I don't know that.
speeding isn't a criminal offence if you are given the chance to pay a Fixed Penalty Notice within a set time
It is. It is not however classed as a criminal conviction if you pay the FPN.
Thank you for clarifying that. I actually think from an environmental and public health point of view speed limits should be enforced, eg by cameras. Millions of pounds could be raised!
(tangent: it's presumably not' OK' to be an 'armchair critic' but what type of being a critic would count as 'not-armchair-and-therefore-OK' ?)
The typical armchair critic is looking to blame people. When something goes wrong, blame and scapegoats usually aren't helpful. It's usually more constructive to look at what went wrong, and at what could have been done better, to prevent that mistake from happening.
The rest of Dame Cressida's statement was ""They have to make these really difficult calls..." and that people shouldn't judge "without actually understanding what was going through their minds". Which is consistent with "let's have a constructive review and see what could be done better" and also consistent with stonewalling.
It’s hard for me to see how this:
I don't think anybody who was not in the operation can actually pass a detailed comment on the rightness and wrongness...
is consistent with support for a constructive review.
Any 'constructive review' doesn't need to result in any change -because the government seems to reserve the right to determine what counts as 'broad public support' as in the following quote from london.gov.uk
'the notion of ‘policing by consent’ is rooted in the belief that for policing to be effective, there must be broad public support for a police service's actions.'
speeding isn't a criminal offence if you are given the chance to pay a Fixed Penalty Notice within a set time
It is. It is not however classed as a criminal conviction if you pay the FPN.
Thank you for clarifying that. I actually think from an environmental and public health point of view speed limits should be enforced, eg by cameras. Millions of pounds could be raised!
Unfortunately the press are fully behind attempts to defang any enforcement of speed limits. It's about time penalties stopped being fixed and were levied on a progressive scale (say 5% of monthly income for anyone on less than median earnings, then 10% of monthly earnings up to twice the median and so on until you're fining the super-rich enough for them to notice).
There's evidence that public police clampdowns on drunk driving correlate with fewer accidents, suggesting that that, at least, works.
There's also evidence that public information campaigns, offering free non-alcoholic drinks to designated drivers, cheap/free public transport and taxis, putting breathalysers on cars and in pubs, and making sure that friends check on the sobriety of anyone who drove, also correlates with fewer accidents.
Again, none of which requires police involvement except as a last intervention.
Yes, but, it would seem - in this instance - only by targeting black people, who may not (a) be breaking any law, or (b) acting in a disorderly fashion.
Which is intimidate black protesters so that they won't protest against legislation that limits their rights to protest.
The police try and maintain law and order.
I've been arguing that they do neither. Order is almost completely maintained by the vast majority of the population living peaceable lives. And they're absolutely rubbish at enforcing the law - 10% successful, overall, and far far less in rape cases.
So if your contention is that they 'try', then how long do you think we should give them before we say, no, this isn't good enough, and we do something else instead?
Yes, but, it would seem - in this instance - only by targeting black people, who may not (a) be breaking any law, or (b) acting in a disorderly fashion.
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
Which is intimidate black protesters so that they won't protest against legislation that limits their rights to protest.
The police try and maintain law and order.
I've been arguing that they do neither. Order is almost completely maintained by the vast majority of the population living peaceable lives. And they're absolutely rubbish at enforcing the law - 10% successful, overall, and far far less in rape cases.
So if your contention is that they 'try', then how long do you think we should give them before we say, no, this isn't good enough, and we do something else instead?
Decisions as to prosecution are made by the CPS based on evidence provided by the Police, forensic experts and denials made by suspects
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
I think a link, or citation, would be helpful. Alas, many of those *black* people might have been wrongfully convicted, as indeed may some *white* prisoners.
From the Prison Reform Trust website:
25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms indicative of psychosis.
And I suspect people from terrible or disadvantaged backgrounds in general are greatly over-represented in prisons. Worthy of a thread in its own right.
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
I suspect you have this the wrong way round. From my experience of working with disaffected teenagers, the black and other ethnic minority youngsters were disproportionately targeted.
I'm white and middle-class, but having worked with young people of a range of hues, and having seen my daughter, who is white but is often interpreted as being Turkish, targeted and scared of the police, because their experiences have taught them to be so, has made me wary of the police force in this country too.
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
I'm going to charitably assume that this is a teachable moment, because otherwise Telford is a racist.
So, Telford, a thought experiment. Let's say that the police arrest no one but black people for 5 years. A proportion of them get sent to prison for crimes that they have been proven by the courts to have committed. You'd expect that the majority of people now in prison are black.
Now, this says nothing about the law abidingness or otherwise of black people. What it does say is that the police only arrest black people.
Can you now apply the that thought experiment to your comment, and then indicate why you're wrong so that I don't have to host yet another Hell thread with your name on it.
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
I suspect you have this the wrong way round. From my experience of working with disaffected teenagers, the black and other ethnic minority youngsters were disproportionately targeted.
I'm white and middle-class, but having worked with young people of a range of hues, and having seen my daughter, who is white but is often interpreted as being Turkish, targeted and scared of the police, because their experiences have taught them to be so, has made me wary of the police force in this country too.
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
I suspect you have this the wrong way round. From my experience of working with disaffected teenagers, the black and other ethnic minority youngsters were disproportionately targeted.
I'm white and middle-class, but having worked with young people of a range of hues, and having seen my daughter, who is white but is often interpreted as being Turkish, targeted and scared of the police, because their experiences have taught them to be so, has made me wary of the police force in this country too.
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
I'm going to charitably assume that this is a teachable moment, because otherwise Telford is a racist.
So, Telford, a thought experiment. Let's say that the police arrest no one but black people for 5 years. A proportion of them get sent to prison for crimes that they have been proven by the courts to have committed. You'd expect that the majority of people now in prison are black.
Now, this says nothing about the law abidingness or otherwise of black people. What it does say is that the police only arrest black people.
Can you now apply the that thought experiment to your comment, and then indicate why you're wrong so that I don't have to host yet another Hell thread with your name on it.
Your example is a nonsense. All I know is that many thousands of people are prosecuted and many of them are black.
I think this might be the most explicitly racist thing ever said on SoF.
"A lot of black people are criminals"
Let it sink in that you read that.
The 'Black' word was not introduced by me. The Police are supposed to base their stop and search on the descriptions given by victims and witnesses
Eh? You put it into your post when you said *The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.*
I think this might be the most explicitly racist thing ever said on SoF.
"A lot of black people are criminals"
Let it sink in that you read that.
The 'Black' word was not introduced by me. The Police are supposed to base their stop and search on the descriptions given by victims and witnesses
Eh? You put it into your post when you said *The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.*
Those are your words.
Am I wrong? Do the Police arrest them and they go direct to jail without passing Go
I think this might be the most explicitly racist thing ever said on SoF.
"A lot of black people are criminals"
Let it sink in that you read that.
The 'Black' word was not introduced by me. The Police are supposed to base their stop and search on the descriptions given by victims and witnesses
Eh? You put it into your post when you said *The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.*
Those are your words.
Am I wrong? Do the Police arrest them and they go direct to jail without passing Go
So you don't deny that you put the word *black* into your post?
So if your contention is that they 'try', then how long do you think we should give them before we say, no, this isn't good enough, and we do something else instead?
It’s pretty clear that you think we’re at (or past) that point, so how about you suggest an alternative?
I think this might be the most explicitly racist thing ever said on SoF.
"A lot of black people are criminals"
Let it sink in that you read that.
The 'Black' word was not introduced by me. The Police are supposed to base their stop and search on the descriptions given by victims and witnesses
Eh? You put it into your post when you said *The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.*
Those are your words.
Am I wrong? Do the Police arrest them and they go direct to jail without passing Go
So you don't deny that you put the word *black* into your post?
I think this might be the most explicitly racist thing ever said on SoF.
"A lot of black people are criminals"
Let it sink in that you read that.
The 'Black' word was not introduced by me. The Police are supposed to base their stop and search on the descriptions given by victims and witnesses
Eh? You put it into your post when you said *The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.*
Those are your words.
Am I wrong? Do the Police arrest them and they go direct to jail without passing Go
So you don't deny that you put the word *black* into your post?
Keep digging...
First used by you and Doc tor. Please be honest
You miss the point, deliberately, because you know that it was YOU who made the assertion that a lot of black people are criminals.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Host Hat On
Telford, I am referring you to Admin for consideration of disciplinary action under the guidelines of Commandment 1. IMO you are behaving like a jerk.
Comments
But okay, the argument is that more visible police presence would prevent crimes happening in the first place. How did that work out on Clapham Common? Given that a member of the public was flashed at yards from a heavy police presence and they refused to even acknowledge it?
That's a bad example because most shoplifting is treated as a civil, not criminal matter. Let's say dwelling-house burglaries instead, and this is where I introduce you to the concept of Taken Into Consideration, where the criminal pleads guilty to a whole string of similar offences to get a paradoxically lighter sentence, whether they did them or not.
When's my trial ?
When they screw up, they often panic.
I find it sad that so many people on here are anti police
That comment made me think a bit because I am not Anti Police.
Not at all and I have worked alongside police in many a happy A/E tea n toast situation.
But at the end of the day I Am wary of police .
Now.
I wasn’t always.
I am now.
I m not anti
Just neutral.
Right. But the thing you want to measure is how much speeding is there now vs how much speeding would there be if the "you're going too fast" sign wasn't there, vs how much speeding would there be if the police never stopped people for speeding.
The posted speed limit on the interstate near me is 55 mph. Everyone drives about 70 mph, and everyone knows that they won't be stopped for doing that. People do, on some sort of regular basis, get stopped for going significantly faster than that, which probably keeps a lid on people's excessive speeding.
If there were never police cars lurking on the interstate ready to stop excessive speeders, it wouldn't surprise me if typical top speeds went up 10mph or more, and accident rates would probably follow.
There's evidence that public police clampdowns on drunk driving correlate with fewer accidents, suggesting that that, at least, works.
We all know (I hope!) that there are always a small minority of bad coppers who twist and abuse the system and then lie about it afterwards.
What we need to acknowledge is that the problem (if we think that there is one - and I do) is with the whole culture of the organisation - which is why some police forces are, on the whole, pretty good and others (especially the Met) have a continuing history of abuse and poor conduct. It is no use pointing to the majority of good coppers if they are working in an organisation which permits or even encourages bad 'uns to get away with it.
In many ways, it is similar to the C of E. Are there plenty of good, hard-working and compassionate priests and bishops in the C of E? Of course there are. But the culture of the organisation/institution is such that, repeatedly over time, priests have committed terrible things and it has been covered up or minimised wherever possible. The culture of the C of E has also made it possible for homophobia, racism and prejudice against "the lower classes" to be regarded as acceptable. Until the culture of the C of E changes, we are unlikely to see significant changes in attitudes and behaviour towards LBGTQ+ et al.
It is the same with the Met (and probably some other forces). Until the culture is changed, no real progress will be made in reducing the number of bad things that happen. And for the culture to change, those at the top need to change. They set and maintain the culture. As long as they are willing to excuse the misbehaviour or even to promote it, nothing of significance will change.
And here is where I do feel a twinge of sympathy (but only a twinge) for Cressida Dick. Trying to change an organisation's culture (especially one that has been ingrained for over 100 years) is no easy task, even if you are determined to do so. When you take on "the System" the chances are that the System will chew you up and spit you out. Having said that, I do feel that Cressida Dick, being so aware of being the first woman in charge of the Met, has adopted the tactic of "I'm just as much a bloke as you are" - which is what a lot of women do when they are the first to reach a certain level in an organisation. Rather than challenge the chauvinistic culture and assumptions, they buy into them in order to prove that they belong where they are.
(tangent: it's presumably not' OK' to be an 'armchair critic' but what type of being a critic would count as 'not-armchair-and-therefore-OK' ?)
Which ironically goes against the whole notion of policing by consent.
The typical armchair critic is looking to blame people. When something goes wrong, blame and scapegoats usually aren't helpful. It's usually more constructive to look at what went wrong, and at what could have been done better, to prevent that mistake from happening.
The rest of Dame Cressida's statement was ""They have to make these really difficult calls..." and that people shouldn't judge "without actually understanding what was going through their minds". Which is consistent with "let's have a constructive review and see what could be done better" and also consistent with stonewalling.
She was in effect saying to Priti Patel 'back me or sack me'.
It is. It is not however classed as a criminal conviction if you pay the FPN.
Thank you for clarifying that. I actually think from an environmental and public health point of view speed limits should be enforced, eg by cameras. Millions of pounds could be raised!
'the notion of ‘policing by consent’ is rooted in the belief that for policing to be effective, there must be broad public support for a police service's actions.'
Unfortunately the press are fully behind attempts to defang any enforcement of speed limits. It's about time penalties stopped being fixed and were levied on a progressive scale (say 5% of monthly income for anyone on less than median earnings, then 10% of monthly earnings up to twice the median and so on until you're fining the super-rich enough for them to notice).
There's also evidence that public information campaigns, offering free non-alcoholic drinks to designated drivers, cheap/free public transport and taxis, putting breathalysers on cars and in pubs, and making sure that friends check on the sobriety of anyone who drove, also correlates with fewer accidents.
Again, none of which requires police involvement except as a last intervention.
Which is intimidate black protesters so that they won't protest against legislation that limits their rights to protest.
The police try and maintain law and order.
How about you address what people actually post instead of posting empty sycophancy, dammit?
I've been arguing that they do neither. Order is almost completely maintained by the vast majority of the population living peaceable lives. And they're absolutely rubbish at enforcing the law - 10% successful, overall, and far far less in rape cases.
So if your contention is that they 'try', then how long do you think we should give them before we say, no, this isn't good enough, and we do something else instead?
I don't recall trying to tell you what to post
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
Decisions as to prosecution are made by the CPS based on evidence provided by the Police, forensic experts and denials made by suspects
The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.
I think a link, or citation, would be helpful. Alas, many of those *black* people might have been wrongfully convicted, as indeed may some *white* prisoners.
25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms indicative of psychosis.
And I suspect people from terrible or disadvantaged backgrounds in general are greatly over-represented in prisons. Worthy of a thread in its own right.
And that is relevant how? Is there some kind of balance; a wrongly convicted person here counts against an unconvicted guilty one there?
I suspect you have this the wrong way round. From my experience of working with disaffected teenagers, the black and other ethnic minority youngsters were disproportionately targeted.
I'm white and middle-class, but having worked with young people of a range of hues, and having seen my daughter, who is white but is often interpreted as being Turkish, targeted and scared of the police, because their experiences have taught them to be so, has made me wary of the police force in this country too.
"A lot of black people are criminals"
Let it sink in that you read that.
I'm going to charitably assume that this is a teachable moment, because otherwise Telford is a racist.
So, Telford, a thought experiment. Let's say that the police arrest no one but black people for 5 years. A proportion of them get sent to prison for crimes that they have been proven by the courts to have committed. You'd expect that the majority of people now in prison are black.
Now, this says nothing about the law abidingness or otherwise of black people. What it does say is that the police only arrest black people.
Can you now apply the that thought experiment to your comment, and then indicate why you're wrong so that I don't have to host yet another Hell thread with your name on it.
I thought that, and wondered if it was worth a Hell call. However, given Telford's past history in respect of Hell calls, it probably isn't.
@Telford - I'm afraid I couldn't find the relevant figures on the CPS website to which you linked. Could you assist, please?
Benjamin Franklin argued "It is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."
It is the job of the Police to target offenders.
I hope @Telford that you mean alleged offenders.
Your example is a nonsense. All I know is that many thousands of people are prosecuted and many of them are black.
Sorry. I don't think that I am any better at finding things than you are.
Eh? You put it into your post when you said *The prison population indicates that a lot of black people are criminals. The Police don't send them there. The courts do.*
Those are your words.
Am I wrong? Do the Police arrest them and they go direct to jail without passing Go
So you don't deny that you put the word *black* into your post?
Keep digging...
It’s pretty clear that you think we’re at (or past) that point, so how about you suggest an alternative?
You miss the point, deliberately, because you know that it was YOU who made the assertion that a lot of black people are criminals.
Telford, I am referring you to Admin for consideration of disciplinary action under the guidelines of Commandment 1. IMO you are behaving like a jerk.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off