Scrap London cops' 'racially biased' gang database – campaigners The database London cops use to rank people's likelihood of gang-related violence is racially biased, a campaign group has said. In a report (PDF) published today, Amnesty International said the Gangs Violence Matrix, set up by the Metropolitan Police in 2012, was not fit for purpose and needs to be dismantled. The group said …
This post has been deleted by its author
We'll all have to post anonymously.
The recent violence in London (stabbings and shootings) has been black, male, under 25 and gang related. Some of the victims were innocent bystanders, none of the perpetrators.
Until we're able to discuss this stuff openly, we're condemning a generation of black boys/men to failure.
This is a problem now, you are no longer allowed to target groups that are predominately x, y or z for fear of upsetting someone.
Lets be realistic about this, gang cultures tend to flourish in poorer neighbourhoods, which are often highly skewed to ethic minorities.
Now this does NOT mean if you are black you will be a gang member; what it does mean if you are in a poor area, you are more likely to be black (as one example) and you are more likely to be in a gang.
Targeting people (which can include options like better youth services not just breaking up groups), is often the way to deal with a real issue.
It's no different than saying shop lifting from Claires Accessories is going to be performed by pre/teen girls or burglaries are nearly always carried out by young males, including children.
I'm not going to be AC as i'm willing to be open on this.
The argument seems to be "Most gang members are black, therefore we should target all black men".
The problem is its very difficult to target only the guilty. Investigations require questions and answers - if you don't ask them then you can't have results. If we could stop and search only those people with gang affiliation, then everyone would support that, but its simply not possible in reality.
I've been stopped and searched twice in my youth and each time walked away with an apology and a thank you from the officers. It is literally nothing to be afraid of. Yes, it is inconvenient, but since most kids carrying knives do so for protection from other people with knives (all surveys seem to show this), then the only answer is to search enough people that everyone stops carrying knives.
It won't be popular, but that stop & search IS going to have to be targetted disproportionately (though not exclusively) at young black males. Anything else would be racist - you'd literally be condemning them to disporportionately die in gang related violence because you didn't want to stop & search people because they were black.
Your post doesn't consider the effect that this targeting has on people who aren't in a gang. If you're an normal black man why should you have to put up with being stopped all the time?
Most gang members are between 5 foot 10 and six foot. I'd you were 5'11" would you be happy to be stopped and searched every couple of weeks? Would a spreadsheet of gang members that just contained everyone of that height be acceptable to you? Sounds as ridiculous as this racist one to me...
>>" I'd you were 5'11" would you be happy to be stopped and searched every couple of weeks?"
If it made sense to target gangs and / or gun and knife crime then yes, absolutely.
I would be as well because
1 I have nothing to hide and hence nothing to fear
2 The police have an excellent record in not fitting people up when they lack evidence but know they are guilty
The whole point with institutional racism/structural inequality is that individual participants on the power side of the equation can often have good intentions but the harm is still real even if the correlation being used is quite strong
I dunno, back in the 70s I was stopped and searched every couple of weeks and I was white, middle class and lived in suburban Surrey. I assumed I was targeted because I had longish hair, rode a bicycle home late at night and, frankly, that the cops were bored and had nothing else to do.
@sabroni
You miss the point. All ducks are birds but most birds through no fault of their own are ducks.
This applies to white/brown/yellow and black, to label people racist for classing one type of duck a criminal because they are poor and have no other ladder in society is wrong. This is the world we live in and to ignore it and condemn those that try to point out the obvious is wrong. The only way this problem is going to be resolved is identifying why this occurs and working to make sure it stops happening. Calling people racist is not going to help the situation, in fact that just galvanises the right wing fuck nuggets.
""Most gang members are black, therefore we should target all black men"."
If your target is gang members then yes, that makes perfect sense.
"On here you'd hope people would understand that "All ducks are birds" doesn't mean "all birds are ducks"."
If your target is certain birds, arresting say cats is clearly non productive.
Now this does NOT mean if you are black you will be a gang member; what it does mean if you are in a poor area, you are more likely to be black (as one example) and you are more likely to be in a gang.
While I agree with most of your post, this bit isn't quite right - there is a correlation but it is not causal. The whole of the North is a poor area compared to the south, but I grew up neither in a gang, nor black. Economics is not the driver for gang membership - broken homes and lack of fathers is, though this also has economic consequences too, which explains the correlation you highlight.
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-297135944/relationship-between-broken-homes-and-academic-achievement
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/how-broken-families-rob-children-their-chances-future-prosperity
https://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0505.pdf
https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/causes_of_crime.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-complex-connection-between-single-parent-families-and-crime/265860/
"criminologist Franklin Zimring, using the sort of careful regressions missing from Cohen's analysis, concludes that improved policing is the only plausible explanation for New York City's record drop in crime" and "there is no disagreement that the majority, and perhaps the large majority, of inmates grew up in fatherless homes"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8109184/Children-from-broken-homes-nine-times-more-likely-to-commit-crimes.html
"Seven out of 10 offenders come from broken homes"
I grew up in Gorton Manchester, not far from Levenshulme and moss side. I went to Spurley hey. I ended up on the wrong side of the law in my youth when I was 17/18 and spent some time in Hindley. In there I reconnected with people from school and not one black lad wasn't dead, in prison, or dealing drugs. I have no idea how this works in London and it's a shit show on our society why that this is the case. Pretending otherwise does nothing to help and banging on about databases when the root cause of the problem (being poor) isn't addressed does nothing.
I post anonymously out of choice, that choice allows me to be honest and not judged, so shoot me.
I wont post anonymously, I have no reason too.
I dont agree with the necessary breakdown in the DB and numbers, but as you pointed out. A large proportion of the crime (stabbings / killings) in the last year have been black on black, indian / pakistani on the same etc etc
It has all been related to Gangs or Drugs (both go hand in hand), is it because of a perpetual loop going on, young kids from poor neighbourhood get involved in crime, go to prison, have kids who are then brought up in that life, and then the loop begins again.
There are plenty of white young men who are criminals, but they tend to be less gang affiliated for one reason or another.
I grew up in Brixton in the 90's before all the trendy cafes etc moved in, it was a lot of black on black crime even back then.
But what do I know, just an opinion
Until we're able to discuss this stuff openly, we're condemning a generation of black boys/men to failure.
Absolutely.
As a society we have to accept and acknowledge that violent crime has serious distortions around age, gender, and race. It's no good the bed-wetters polishing up their deck of cards and getting ready to holler. Denying there is a problem with young black males assaulting and killing people, mostly each other, is condemning more of them to die, and that actually IS racist.
If most people on a gang database happen to be young black men then that is more likely than not because gangs more often than not consist of young black men. Self evidently, not all blacks are in gangs, and not all gangs are blacks, and nobody is suggesting otherwise.
Solving the problem is very much going to require targetted intervention and that very much is going to have to include policing, amongst other measures, and that is going to have to include stop and search. Or we can be racist, and just let more black boys die.
"They are only interested in punishment, punishment and more punishment."
I see you got a few downvotes.
Sorry to point out a facts to people but this is true.
Compare Crime Punishment to Crime Prevention budgets and it pretty bloody obvious.
A youth centre for 100 kids per year cost less money than sticking one kid in a youth detention centre for the same period. Now guess which ones are getting the cutbacks and closures.
Question is how much do we know ?
Last night there was a guy on the news who was showing a section of this database. He pointed out that the largest groups / gangs in North London were NOT on this list (they are Turkish and Syrian), so if we are to believe that list as being complete, I tend to agree and am appalled.
However, it was part, so if someone had decided to strip out part of the database for their own agenda and pass on, then it is skewed.
If it is the whole DB then it is bad - really bad
If all the gangs were on the DB, but then the list of criminals / known trouble makers was then shown to highlight a certain group more than the others, it maybe skewed, but it may also be true and some people may not like to face the hard facts.
The young lad who got killed last weekend the "good boy". He way well have been, but again it was reported he shot one of these provocative video's on youtube taunting another gang..... good boy - maybe not so ?
Is this not the influence of music ? or Social Media ?
some music seems to promote this with the language they use and deliberately taunting each other
In the last if we had an argument with someone, we went away, maybe moaned to our mates and that was pretty much it. These days they walk off and continue online and their mates get involved and it escalates instead of just blowing over as it used to.
"It's not racially biased, it's called reality."
From TFA:
"In contrast, the black population of London is 13 per cent, while the percentage of black people actually identified as being responsible for serious youth violence in the capital is 27 per cent."
ie 73% of serious youth crime is not being committed by black kids
So no, it's not 'reality' to assume that just because someone is a young black guy, that they're automatically involved in gang violence, and it's almost certainly a waste of police resources to concentrate on them as exclusively as this database does.
"In contrast, the black population of London is 13 per cent, while the percentage of black people actually identified as being responsible for serious youth violence in the capital is 27 per cent."
ie black kids are responsible for more than twice the share of crime versus the population as a whole. So it makes sense to target them specifically.
I made a similar assumption on first reading. Reading again, it's saying that 27% of offenders are black.
This is still indicative of a problem though, as it is about twice as high as you would expect by population, all else being even.
You would think that the database would be closer to the 'real' value of 27% than the 70-odd that it is.
But there could be a reason for this - is the database/matrix a relatively recent thing to be used to counter an increase in violence in those areas? It seems small enough. Are there other reasons other than just racial bias?
I don't know, I don't know anything about it. Just the raw numbers don't necessarily tell the full story.
Even thats a dangerous interpretation
27% of those caught and convicted were black
It might be that blacks committed only 1% of all crimes but the police caught more of them
It might be that blacks committed 80% of all crimes and the police have been too scared to track them down.
It is most likely that we will never really know the truth.
Any article that puts police and intelligence together seems a bit dodgy anyway
Reading again, it's saying that 27% of offenders are black.
Yes, agreed. The full para to save anyone else having to back track to the article and check is "In contrast, the black population of London is 13 per cent, while the percentage of black people actually identified as being responsible for serious youth violence in the capital is 27 per cent."
The problem here is the confusion of statistics. Gang violence isn;t all youth violence - they used 20 (I think) as a cut off for youth.
The real crime level due to blacks in london, whcih this database purports to realte to, is between 54% and 67%, and yes, I have a citation right here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom
I quote "Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; and for gun crimes, 67 percent."
Further it states "Black males accounted for 29 percent of the male victims of gun crime and 24 percent of the male victims of knife crime.[27] On sex offences, black men made up 32 per cent of male suspects. Similar statistics were recorded for females. On knife crime, 45 percent of suspected female perpetrators were black; for gun crime, 58 percent; and for robberies, 52 percent."
And in an attempt to show the colour blindness of the policing of this, we have the final quote from the link - "Between April 2005 and January 2006, figures from the Metropolitan Police Service showed that black people accounted for 46 percent of car-crime arrests generated by automatic number plate recognition cameras"
Now, as I've said earlier, white boys don;t get a pass - they may be under represented in the statistics, but they are still represented. Its just that statistically, black people in London commit most of the violent crime according to the evidence in wikipedia, despite making up just over 13% of the population of London. That, is one hell of an over representation, and by denying it because it is uncomfortable reading, we deny ourselves the opportunity to confront it, and we deny tomorrows victims any chance at a better future - remember, of the 62 (time of writing) murder victims in London so far this year, most have been black or asian. Again, citations follow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#Black_population_of_London
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-knife-crime-statistics-woolwich-dlr-kensington-greenwich-twickenham/
It should be self evident and go without saying, but in an attempt to prevent the usual suspects drowning out a grown up debate on this subject, none of the black people I work with is involved in crime. None of my black friends (I only have 3) is involved in crime. Being black does not make you a criminal, but being a violent criminal in London does mean you're probably black. If we can just use statistics, numbers, and facts rather than emotion, the race card, and ideological (magical) thinking, we can begin to confront and so resolve the problem.
As a middle aged white man, my odds of being murdered in London are so low as to be almost non-existant, but I'd rather the hard of thinking shout racist at me than we simply continue to pretend that there is no porblem when all evidence to the contrary shows there is.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's the culture. As long as we have all this "art" that glorifies gang activity and violence, we're going to have a problem with youth being violent. Unfortunately, there is something in this "art" that resonates with urban youth, particularly blacks, although kids of any ethnic group can be influenced by this crap. And young kids tend to be suggestible, so they act out what they are told by these "artists," hence lots of crime and violence.
What the solution is, I'm not sure. I'm not sure anybody has a good solution to this. It would be nice if some of these "artists" would talk about thinking ahead, consequences of actions and the benefit of being a useful part of society, but that doesn't seem to be on.
I notice you substituted "computer games" for "art" there to avoid a flurry of downvotes... :)
yes , art also includes gangsta rap , and all the violent movies we love.
Its human nature , and when you're poor with nothing to lose , you think "why not go for the blingy Range Rover?" If I have to put some caps in asses along the way - its part of the adventure.
Similar thinking drives some young muslims to join Isil
I had to stop reading thrillers because I didn't like the effect they had on me. I didn't go out murdering people or beating them up, but I certainly found I was getting more aggressive in speech patterns and thinking. Once I stopped reading them I definitely noticed that my attitudes reverted to a more civilised pattern.
Already in 2003:
How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back: Violence, misogyny, and lawlessness are nothing to sing about.
It sometimes occurs to me that if a white illuminati conspiracy was doing its very best to promote a culture to destroy black society and keep the n~ in the ghetto where presumably said conspirators would think they belonged, then it really would not look very different from the whole rap/gangsta thing.
A (very competent) black lass who worked in IT with me once said to me that she went out almost exclusively with white men because all the black guys she knew were either drug dealers or failing musicians.
When one of the more able black youth gets ahead they often get dragged back down, either by other black youth, or their own stupidity.
One of the London crews had a minor member get into Exeter University, he was supplying drugs, free 'samples' initially, to expand the crews 'trade' and help pay his way, the University ignored other students reports of such dealing using the usual PC excuses. Then one of his new and inexperienced customers OD'd, the Police were brought in by the hospital, he was moved to a different set of halls whilst they investigated, and continued to deal, eventually he was expelled following another 'customers' OD, having been arrested for supplying drugs. The University fought doing so as he'd not been convicted in court... If he'd severed his links to the London gang he'd have been targeted by them when he'd returned home, once your in, your in for life.
Anon for obvious reasons
The information presented is simply not suffiicient to decide if it is racially biased. The percentage of black people who make up gangs would be the right comparison against the matrix rather than the percentage of black people who commit serious youth violence. Even if the percentages for this are significantly different there could be other reasons due to differences between the way different gangs operate why the percentages on thd database and the percentage invoved might be different.
My understanding is that in the recent upsurge in gang related violence in London both the victims and perpetrators have almost all been black, which is worryingly reminiscent of the US situation.
What is an issue is that this database is not subject to checking and revision yet is shared and can adversely affect someone wrongly listed. That is a problem and I would have thought violated GDPR.
Amnesty International is a political organisation with Marxist Leninist roots. Like so many others that masquerade as well meaning foundations eg Greenpeace, FOE the list is endless. Long and short they are anti establishment, anti capitalist anti Police. They are the apologists for terrorism along with the mainstream media who always paint the unfortunate victims of the current wave of stabbings as 'aspiring'.
Aspiring footballer, aspiring architect, aspiring lawyer and of course aspiring rapper. The sad truth is that the majority of these young men are deeply involved in drug dealing and gang violence. It is in fact political correctness that has hampered police efforts to crack down on crime and now we are seeing the consequences of it, alongside the Pakistani rape scandals that have been tolerated for years over the UK. This dogma is the real reason why so many are suffering at the moment.
Simple political solution. Have a separate black ghetto police force purely for the black ghetto, have its chiefs chosen by the leaders of the gangs and have the gang leaders carefully control which gangs this police force targets.
Works for the city of London police - you never hear of any financial crime in London
" The sad truth is that the majority of these young men are deeply involved in drug dealing and gang violence."
You have a citation for that 'Fact'?
Fact: A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.
If 27% of youth violence is perpetrated by black kids, it follows that the 'majority' (73%. Better than the Brexit majority) of these crimes are perpetrated by white kids who are less impacted by Political Correctness, what efforts are the police making in this regard?
Your comment is worthy of the Dopey Wail.
Disclaimer: I am not a Marxist Leninist or for that matter a Liberal.
Peter Benenson was the son of a rich Zionist and an army officer. He was Christian, educated at Eton and Oxford and a barrister. Although a Labour candidate he was hardly a Marxist. The founding members of Amnesty were drawn from all of the political parties. Amnesty's first campaign was against religious persecution by communist dictators.
Yes Adam, and you make a very good point. A lot of organisations began with very genuine and well meaning roots and intentions. It seems that often they are infiltrated and overtaken by the more extremist elements (applies to the right as much as to the left) with strong political agendas. The Labour party is an interesting example. This even applies to mainstream charities that have morphed in to quasi political organisations.
By Labour do you mean like how new Labour managed to become red Tories?(some sort of violet colour maybe?) Before beating itself up repeatedly when it tries to swerve back again (because of a whole generation thinking 'Education, education, education' and weapons of mass destruction might have been small fibs..? Wanting labour to swing back to the left).
Anon because politics is mentioned and I'm just waiting for the hate.
Amnesty would expect the dbase to roughly reflect the % of people involved in crime. By the stated statistics 27%.
Or reflective of the society level.
But reality doesnt always mirror statistics.
statistics puts male/female ratios at about 50/50.
so if I was to walk down a high street, or an airport or a school canteen and query 100 people on their sex, I wouldn't necessarily get 50/50..I might get 75/25.
But is my dbase sexist? because it has more of one gender than another? Well no...because its based on actuals not statistics.
If a large proportion of people linked to gangs are green - then it cant be racist if its fact.
However, it becomes racist if police only stop and check people who are green.
that should be the focus of investigation NOT the contents of a dbase in vs population stats.
The point is that there's a large number of people on the database who are there because they are black, not because they are gang members.
That simply cannot be true. There are around 800,000 black people in London, and only around 3000 black people on the gang database, thus people cannot be being added to the database just because they're black - it'd be 10x the size it is and growing fast.
Facts people, use them to form educated views. Emotions aren't worth anything in a rational debate, and only lead to opinions, which as we know are like assholes - everyones got one and most of them stink.
This post has been deleted by its author
here we go again.
Read the fucking GDPR before randomly spouting shit.
"Crime and taxation
The Act recognises that it is sometimes appropriate to disclose personal data for certain purposes to do with criminal justice or the taxation system. In these cases, individuals’ rights may occasionally need to be restricted....
the prevention or detection of crime;
the capture or prosecution of offenders....."
@Lost all faith: OK, the GDPR doesn't apply to prevention or detection of crime and capture or prosecution of offenders, but the report says the data was shared with borough officials and other public authorities:
"Typically, however, the police openly shared information about named individuals on the matrix with all who attended, with little clarity or safeguards around how the data should be used or shared," (my emphasis)
There is a big difference between:
Chief Constable: "We're seeing a high involvement of black youths in violent crime, we should discuss ways to change that"
Mayor: "I'll see if we can organise some youth training schemes and get them into jobs"
and:
Chief Constable: "We're putting Joe Bloggs on our gang database, we're sure he's involved, but we can't pin anything on him yet"
Mayor: "Joe Bloggs? I think he was applying for an internship, so you think he's high risk?"
The database explicitly includes those considered at risk of becoming involved with gangs. The more warning signs, the more likely to be included. If the culture you grow up in (income, music, average crime levels in your area, etc) includes more of those warning signs you're more likely to be included.
I'd tend to feel such a list of individuals who haven't been convicted of anything should be used very cautiously - only for outreach and so on to provide positive support, with minimal disclosure to others - certainly not a potential employer or the like.
However, that doesn't mean that a significant proportion of those with sufficient gang-related influences around them to warrant listing aren't black - after all, that's part of the problem for some minorities, because they are already being affected by poverty, reduced opportunities and so on. It's bad if they're then stopped and searched and marginalised more for that, but positive if a system recognises they're the ones that need the most support. It's all how the information is used - or not used, as the case may be.
I think what we're seeing here is a problem with naming. Here it seems that the Met have created a "Gang" database where they actually mean a "Black Gang" database. Let's call it what it is and avoid the confusion.
Clearly a "gang" database should also include those others who are responsible for the other 73% of the youth violence. However if the very definition of "gang" that you're using assumes you have to be black to be in one, then that's never going to happen.
Yes, all the high-profile crime plastered over the papers recently has been black kids. However, if the quoted stats are correct, then our impression that all yoof crime is black kids then it's a good example of Availability Bias - ie we're not seeing the full picture in the papers.
A little while ago that a gang of yoofs were sent down for various forms of villainy in North London. The papers published their photos, and it made me little heart glad to see that they were a mixture of black, white and asian. A proper sign of integration at work... It would be interesting to see how many of the non-black ones were on the famous database.
And no Ma1010, not all "artists" are out there glorifying this crap, and quite a lot are actively working against it. Just because you don't seem to be aware of that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To take a single example, try listening to Missy Elliot and then try your lazy generalisations.
And just to dispel the other generalisation you will have come up with reading this: I'm neither black nor a yoof...
@batfink - "in North London. ... they were a mixture of black, white and asian. A proper sign of integration at work..."
I can personally attest to the long history of integration in North London, 20+ years ago, I was accosted by two muggers near Archway, one white, one black.
Fuck this database that is 99% male. Girls are violent. Girls are in gangs.
If the police don't know this already from their work on London's streets then I'll eat my hat. The database has been created on stats and police reports (not court convictions) so YES there is a problem!
All law enforcement uses profiling as do customs and excise, border force etc. etc.
Interestingly, if you are white, male, 30 to 50, travelling alone on a ferry or eurotunnel and driving a performance car you fit the profile of a drug smuggler and will be subject to 'enhanced scrutiny' as its termed.
You won't find an Amnesty report about that.
I was an (cough! cough!) innocent schoolkid complete with blazer and schoolcap during the skinhead** era and I would have been more than happy for Plod to database all young, white, bovver-boot** and 'crombie** coat wearing, walnut-sized brain primates and to have 'em rounded up en masse and sent away for good.
**Explanation for millennials : "Skinhead" was... oh, forget it. Look it up. While you are at it look up "pogoing" too. The kind of "dance" which could be done when you have a brain the size of a walnut.
By the way - good article and EXCELLENT discussion in this forum.
I'd Pray for Europe....
France and England especially, but you're toast and I'm agnostic.
You can't even talk about the Pakistani Rape gangs without your cucked and enriched
countrypersons calling you racist bigots. Once you dropped your borders you let the enemy in, but
you're only allowed to call them migrants now...you rich Culture, what a shame really...
Yup, back in the seventies I had long hair and bell bottoms and I got stopped and searched, sometimes quite roughly, by plains clothes police, but I don't recall feeling victimised or unfairly treated.
It seemed to me at the time that Mr Plod was quite rightly targeting people with my profile because they were more likely to score that way.
Mind you commonsense wasn't frowned on back then.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
