Guardian (UK): Police stop and search 'not cutting knife crime', new figures suggest

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/24/stop-and-search-operation-blunt/print


Police stop and search 'not cutting knife crime', new figures suggest

Alan Travis guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 January 2010 19.18 GMT

• Criminologist casts doubt on efficacy of police power
• Calls for amendment to way section 60 is operated

There is little connection between the use of stop and search powers by the ­Metropolitan police and reductions in knife crime, according to new figures ­analysed by a leading criminologist.

Professor Marian Fitzgerald says that in the case of one London borough – Southwark – a huge expansion in the use of "section 60" stop and search powers has actually been accompanied by an increase in knife crime. The section 60 powers under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act allow the police to search anyone without needing to have grounds for suspicion in a designated area at a specific time where they believe there is threat of serious violence.

Fitzgerald also says the recent European court of human rights ruling that section 44 counterterrorist stop and search powers are unlawful because they are too widely drawn and lack adequate safeguards should also apply to section 60 searches.

This exceptional power was introduced to deal with football hooligans and gang fights and has been rarely used over the past 15 years. But a decision by the Met to use section 60 searches as part of their drive against knife crime means that since May 2008 there has been a huge expansion and they have become routine in many London boroughs. The latest figures show the number of section 60 searches has rocketed from 4,400 in 2003-04 to more than 80,000 in 2008-09....

[sharesunited]

1. Why aren't they using guns? What's their secret?

[east texas lib]

2. Oh but they are..

Since May of '08 they've snagged 550 knives, 20 guns, 150 weapons listed as "other" and 2500 Nimrods have been arrested. I'm sure the weapons listed as "other" included everything a human mind could imagine.

[sharesunited]

3. Only 20 guns? Again I ask, what's their secret to achieving such a low gun threat?

[east texas lib]

4. Just offhand, I'd say the consfication of privately owned firearms...

As you undoubtedly already know.

[sharesunited]

5. Imagine that. A public policy to make the threat scarce has actually reduced the threat.

Very appealing!

[east texas lib]

6. I agree. You should emigrate immediately...

Drop a line once in a while and let us know if the dental plans are as bad as I hear they are.;)

[sharesunited]

7. Do you have something against realizing the same magnificent achievement here?

Or do you love guns and ammo too much?

[east texas lib]

9. I love the freedoms that my country offers, nothing more,nothing less.

If that disturbs you, then change the Constitution. Surely there are enough like-minded individuals such as youself to do so.

[sharesunited]

12. You just wrapped yourself in the flag. Don't you think Britons love their country?

Are they mistaken in the belief that they are "free?"

Have they erred in acquiescing in the restriction of a "freedom" you enjoy so that they don't need to fear the same risk of bullets piercing their Brit hides?

[east texas lib]

17. They are still being shot, stabbed and bludgeoned to death...

However, they are now quite free to offer no meaningful resistance to their attackers and thus die a truly "civilized" ignominious death. I'm sure the Brits love their country. I just wonder how many of them love their government.

[sharesunited]

18. Think they have more Muslim extremists per capita than we do?

Think they are more likely or less likely to suffer the rudimentary mass shooting attack at the hands of an extremist as we suffered at Fort Hood?

[east texas lib]

20. Nice shot, but you missed the hoop.

No points given.

[sharesunited]

21. But my magazine still has a bunch of rounds left in it. Mind if I keep shooting?

[east texas lib]

22. By all means, continue...practice makes perfect and you could certainly use the range time.

[sharesunited]

23. Who needs skill when you've got firepower!

[east texas lib]

24. Spray and pray?

A discredited doctrine. You should talk to a Marine about that.

[dashrif]

47. +1 shares can keep the s&p

in the army I learnd to call for fire and will take a 5-10 min arty prep or a 2k jdam any day

[proteus_lives]

32. Man, I've never seen another DUer who is more proud of their ignorance.

Silly authoritarian.

[oneshooter]

34. Firepower without the skills to use it is useless. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

38. Amateurs can practice till they get it right

Professionals until they get it wrong . Unless they are apparatchiks ,then it is my fault .

[east texas lib]

44. Exactly...your failed execution of a brilliant central plan...

Must THEY do ALL the thinking?

[Euromutt]

19. When the cops can stop and search you at random, that's a major intrusion on your freedom

And it might be noted that the British violent crime rate has been the highest in western Europe for the past 10-15 years running, higher than the U.S. rate. Your chance of getting beaten or knifed in the UK is significantly higher than it is in the U.S. The gun crime rate in the UK is higher now than it's ever been, in spite of increasingly stringent firearm laws over the past century (100 years ago, the only law regulating firearms was that you had to get a license to carry a concealed pistol, which was a matter of going to the nearest post office and paying a fee).

The freedom of British citizens has been increasingly eroded over the past 40 years, with successive anti-terrorism laws prompted by IRA activity on the British mainland. Numerous British laws have been challenged under the European Declaration of Human Rights, at severe expense to the people mounting the challenge.

No, the British aren't anywhere near as free as Americans. Not by a long shot.

[TheWraith]

52. Actually, yeah, they are mistaken if they think they're free.

You can't credibly claim to be free in a country where your every move is tracked by surveillance cameras, where your electronic communications are subject to search without warrant, where you yourself can be detained and searched without probable cause, and where you can't defend yourself in your own home against an intruder without being considered a criminal yourself. That's called a borderline police state.

And apparently, you really don't at all care about the number of people who are bludgeoned or stabbed, so long as they're not being shot.

[Euromutt]

11. The achievement has happened only in your imagination

Gun crimes doubles from 1997 to 2007; homicide has been more or less stable; nonfatal stabbings doubled from 2000 to 2008, and nonfatal shootings almost tripled.

The evidence indicates that the carrying of knives and guns, and criminal use of lethal force is becoming more widespread in the UK, and the people doing it are given to incidental criminal behavior, rather than being "full-time criminals."

Recommended reading from the Guardian, August 2008: "Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you" http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

[sharesunited]

13. When they are ready to reduce the proliferation of combat knives, they will do so.

A political line-in-the-sand gets drawn in the sand that the problem merits it.

[Euromutt]

28. That's been tried, too

It's been illegal since 1988 to carry any knife in public (except a non-locking folding pocket knife with a blade no longer than 3") unless there is a bona fide reason to do so (e.g. you're a chef on your way to or from work). In the interim, there have been increasing restrictions on importing, manufacturing and selling bladed implements (such as replica Japanese swords, "Rambo" knives, etc.), and yet, here we are, with the British police now conducting random stops and searches in an attempt to suppress the number of knives being carried.

In spite of Tony Blair's slogan in the mid-1990s--"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"--H.M. Government's failure to reduce violent crime seems to stem mainly from its failure to actually address the causes of crime.

[rd_kent]

36. How come you IGNORE the evidence that proves you wrong?

The utpoia you think is happening there IS NOT HAPPENING THERE. For fucks sake man, why so willfully ignorant?

[dashrif]

48. They are

trying to stop the proliferation of pub glasses or glass pints too, wont that be great?

[PavePusher]

40. Haven't people posted information about how gun crime went UP after their bans?

Why yes, yes they did.

Here's some now...

Bing search term "British gun crime" (only the first page):




Gun crime | Home Office
We are committed to tackling gun crime to ensure the safety and security of all British citizens. A snapshot of gun crime. Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun ...

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime · Cached pageIt Will Pass - British Gun Crime Triples (after ban on hand guns)British Gun Crime Triples (after ban on handguns) GUN crime has almost tripled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities ...

www.itwillpass.com/guns_british_gun_crime_triples.shtml · Cached pageBritish Gun Crime up 242 Percent; Post Says 'Laws Seen As Curbing ...Update below jump with related items from NewsBusters. This morning, NewsBusters contributing editor Dan Gainor brought this Washington Post article to my attention:

newsbusters.org/node/12267 · Cached pageBritish Crime Rate Soars After Gun BanBritish Crime Rate Soars After Gun Ban By Richard W. Stevens, Esq. <[e-mail]> Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org

www.rense.com/politics6/britgun.htm · Cached pageDid British Gun Control Work?Did British Gun Control Work? Iain Murray Saturday, June 23, 2001 WASHINGTON ... strict gun control laws, there are more than enough illegally held guns in Britain to allow gun crime ...

archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/22/63817.shtml · Cached pageTruth About Guns, Crime & ViolenceCRIME AND VIOLENCE 06/22/09. Guns make it easier to kill and injure people. ... OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN"DEMOGRAPHIC" FACTORS & VIOLENT CRIME IN BRITISH ...

gunsandcrime.org · Cached pageBritish & Canadian Crime RatesBritish and Canadian Crime Rates: Not Evidence For Gun Prohibition. by Clayton Cramer. Gun prohibition advocates frequently point to British and Canadian crime rates as proof that ...

www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.us.canada.html · Cached pageGun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason MagazineThe 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik ...

reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome · Cached pageGuns | British Crime Rates Higher Than the U.S.A Quarter of English are Victims of Crime By Sean O'Neill London Telegraph. PEOPLE living in England and Wales are at greater risk of falling victim to crime than citizens of most ...

www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/britishcrimerates.htm · Cached page#3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries... after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4 * Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5 3. Fact: British ...

gunowners.org/sk0703.htm · Cached page

[Euromutt]

10. Except it hasn't

From 2000 to 2008, the number of nonfatal shootings in the UK almost tripled.

[sharesunited]

15. Fewer guns shooting more bullets? How long can such a counter trend last?

Presumably, this statistical observation is equally apparent to the British people.

Are they ready to open the gun sales counter now?

[Euromutt]

25. "Fewer guns"? Where do get that idea?

Fewer legally imported and purchased firearms, certainly, but there aren't fewer firearms in the UK. If anything, there are probably more privately owned handguns in the UK now than there have ever been, except they're all illegal.

The UK is a practical example of your "turn off the spigot" idea. The UK hasn't produced handguns since World War II, and private ownership of handguns became illegal 13 years ago, as did commercial import and sales. The problem is, the criminal element has (unsurprisingy) not been interested in complying with the law, and they've kept smuggling in firearms, and if necessary, converting them in illicit workshops.

Once again, it's the criminal demand for guns that attracts supply; not the supply that drives criminal use of firearms. If criminals want guns, some fucker will provide them. Even on an island.

[sharesunited]

27. Who can object to fighting criminals?

Especially if their criminality pertains to trafficking in illegal guns.

Keep working the solution up the supply chain, while you stamp it out where you find it on the street.

The lethality of the contraband absolutely requires this.

[Euromutt]

29. Who can toss out a red herring?

Evidently, you. (Red herring: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html)

What does your post have to do with the fact that, even if the legal supply of firearms is cut off entirely, those who seek to acquire firearms illegally will continue to do so, and others continue to supply them? Even the imposition of a total police state will not alter that fact. Organized crime in China gets all the guns it wants straight from the factory, thanks to shoddy inventory control and corruption. If somebody made it worth their while, they'd probably be happy to smuggle them to overseas markets, too.

[sharesunited]

30. So you must also believe that

banning possession of kiddie porn has been ineffective to reduce its proliferation.

So you must believe that zero tolerance for drug use by OTR truck drivers has been ineffective to reduce drug use by truckers.

Demand and supply are fellow travelers.

[Euromutt]

35. "Demand and supply are fellow travellers"

If by that you mean that where there's a demand, a supply will seek it out, then yes. That's precisely what I've been arguing. The campaign to eradicate drug use among OTR truck drivers worked because it focused on eradicating the demand, by imposing urine testing on the drivers and limiting the number of hours truckers could spend at the wheel (thereby obviating the point of taking drugs, which was to enable drivers to drive for longer hours). The campaign would be more effective (and less onerous) if truck drivers weren't paid by the mile (which creates the incentive to spend as much time driving as possible).

Similarly, prohibiting the production of child pornography in, or the import of child pornography into, the United States doesn't affect the production in other countries. What does affect production overseas is removing the incentive, that is to eradicate the demand domestically. Criminalizing possession is a part of that. And, as has been pointed out ad nauseam in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x284381 in the case of child pornography, the harm is done in the production of the item, not the use, which distinguishes it from firearms (and, for that, matter, drugs).

But the problem with your "turn off the spigot" trope is that it does not address demand. Your idea only makes sense if we assume that, if we cut off the supply, demand will dry up. And historical evidence--from Prohibition, the "War on Drugs," and western European gun laws in recent years--shows that this is not the case. Where demand exists, a supply will be found. In the 1950s, unable to acquire regular firearms, New York street gangs made zip guns. Reducing the supply of cocaine to the Midwest resulted in the rise of meth (which is one drug that is analogous to child pornography in that its manufacture is directly harmful). And in due course, some outside source will spot that there is money to be made selling even the sub-par product, which is why most meth is now manufactured in Mexico and smuggled in. Education campaigns on the dangers of meth have met with mixed success in that they've reduced demand for meth, but produced a concomitant increase in demand for crack cocaine; i.e. those reached didn't stay off drugs, they just opted for a different one.

This also illustrates why your "guns embolden crime" and "guns settle grievances" sound bites are facile platitudes--or to put it more directly, bullshit. Guns do not create criminal intent, nor interpersonal grievances, and therefore eliminating guns will not eliminate the potential for violence. If you could think of a way that would reduce that potential, then it wouldn't matter if firearms were available, because without the desire to use them on one's fellow man, they would do minimal harm (much less than motor vehicles or household chemicals, say).

[sharesunited]

39. Here's how you may be disregarding your own biases:

If it's banned, there is at least SOME impediment to getting it.

Your extraordinary efforts to get it will call attention to yourself.

If someone says they can get it for you, they are probably trying to sting you.

If you succeed at getting it, your possession is subject to being discovered.

Your previous stealth and concealment is for naught the moment you are overt about having it.

~ ~

Guns do not create criminal intent in a vacuum. But in the real atmosphere of Earth, their ready availability affects choices and actions. Bad decisions are hastily made with fatal consequences.

From Chris Rock's five-thousand-dollar-bullets routine: You'd Better HOPE I Can't Get No Bullets On Layaway!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. Your presumptions do not coincide with the reality of desired banned items...

Drugs and alcohol prohibition in America proved no tantamount impediment.
What makes you think the banning of firearms could present a greater impediment?
Unlike the recreational nature of the former, the latter actually maintains gainful utility.

Not presenting great impediments, efforts to acquire will not be "extraordinary".

There is little means to reliably know how may illegal transactions take place.
Ergo, it is impossible to state most proposed transactions are sting operations.

Obviously, the criminals at large presume the utility of illicit actions outweighs the risk of getting caught.
(Hint: this may be one avenue to pursue effective crime-fighting tactics)

Acting overt and illicitly is the intent of some persons... why would their actions be for naught?

~ ~

The core of criminal action rests on shortcutting societal rules and boundaries for advancement.
By definition, criminals break the law to get ahead. This is the reality of crime on planet Earth.
Change the rules and they will still seek to shortcut the new system.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. That comes to 250,000 dollars for a box of cartridges

Smuggling bootleg Aquila from Mexico could prove to be very profitable (under one atmospehere 14.7psi). Chavez would probably be quite happy to get in on the action as well .

But the thing is .....noone will ever pay 250,000 dollars for a box of ammo, so it wont be THAT profitable . Judging by the rather stable price and the increased quality of weed over the last 30 years I have a sneaking suspicion the price of ammo could actually decrease .

[sharesunited]

46. Needless to say, the next shooting rampage in the UK will truly be noteworthy.

It's just too commonplace in the U.S.

Fades from the headlines very quickly.

Such A Tragedy. Now Carry On Dying Y'all.

[Euromutt]

51. And when all else fails, resort to sound bites

Another red herring. At least you finally spelled "y'all" correctly. Only took a few dozen tries.

Well, since you aren't willing to admit that almost everything you've asserted in this thread was wrong, I don't think you'll ever have anything insightful to say, and I'm tired of reading your four sound bites ad nauseam, I'm finally plonking you.

[rd_kent]

45. Do you live in some magical place made of Nerf and flowers or something?

Because you continue to describe things that JUST WILL NOT HAPPEN, and in places where your ideas have been tried, it has been a FAILURE.

Here in reality, your ideas are shit.

[Euromutt]

50. If by that you mean I take into account historical evidence...

...then yes. As 0.1% points out, what you think should happen failed to actually happen in the case of alcohol during Prohibition and drugs in the "War on Drugs."

[rd_kent]

37. Here we go again!

You are so full of shit.

[PavePusher]

41. Well with 13 years of evidence that it DOESN'T WORK...

I don't know what you're bragging about.

[tburnsten]

14. Actually the stop and searches were failures

if you had read the article at all you would easily comprehend that, if you have anything approaching normal intelligence. They stop and searches were accompanied by an increase in knife attacks in the same areas, that is not a good thing. The public policy failed catastrophically at its' goal while costing UK citizens an incredible amount of privacy and freedom from harassment.

[sharesunited]

16. You're mixing up cause and effect. More knife attacks resulted in more searches.

[tburnsten]

33. Then how come the increase in knife attacks came after the searches?

[Euromutt]

8. Eighty-five thousand people searched, 720 weapons found

I'm underwhelmed by the ratio of effort to results, especially given that we're talking about searches without so much as reasonable suspicion, let alone probable cause. Then there's the minor detail that:

34,400 white people were searched compared with 50,596 black people.

If you're going to impose a police state (and yes, I consider "random" stops and frisks to be a feature of a police state), it should at least actually improve public safety. If it doesn't even do that, the last excuse for that particular human rights violation just evaporates.

[east texas lib]

26. Reminicent of "Operation Intercept" back in the '70s on the US-Mexican border...

Massive invasion of privacy, abject failure of intended objective.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. The Brits have never been very big on personal gun ownership.

The wealthy Brits have their beautiful shotguns for birding, and some fabalous big game rifles. But the everyday guy rarely owned a gun. That went doubly so for handguns. It wasn't a matter of law. They just didn't need them. They never had the problems that Americans had to caused us to arm ourselves so heavily. So gun control was easily accepted there as few people had to give anything up.

Now they are discovering that knife control doesn't work. The reasons that it doesn't work are the same reasons why gun control doesn't work.

[proteus_lives]

31. Big Brother isn't always right.

Too bad the Brits won't learn from this.