Black people twice as likely to be charged with drugs possession – report

[Lewkowski]

Fits surprisingly well considering he has already slammed other cultures for being different.

Cultures are better or worse on their own merits regardless of differences. Unless your putting forth the laughable assumption that all cultures are equal? If so you'll have to agree that sub cultures that think the KKK are great are just as valued and equal as cultures that support racial equality. Bottom line - culture is what causes certain ethnic groups to have different rates of arrest and incarceration NOT skin color or discrimination by the police. I'm not suggesting that racism is completely eradicated but is becoming more and more rare. (Well outside of the Democratic Party's position on AA).

[Lewkowski]

No, you used that example because you don't know what you're talking about. If you'd mentioned "Asians" then people would have pointed out that they have other prejudices associated with them and experience racism in other ways. you may be unaware of the racism directed towards people with Oriental features but that speaks only towards your own ignorance. Similarly there are other prejudices that come into play when you're from India, provided you're not suspected of being eg. a Muslim from Pakistan or Bangladesh. If they're affected differently them that reflects the differences in specific prejudices, among other things. You might argue that the prejudices reflect some aspect of reality, but, let's face it: you believe that's a good argument because, as a Republican from Texas with an eastern European background, you're a bit of a racist.

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm referring to skin color being the reason for arrests and incarceration so I used an example of a very different culture with different arrest rates but still the same general skin tone as another ethnic group. The point being that people's choices (heavily influenced by culture) are FAR more likely to be the reason they are arrested or convicted then race.

[Aimless]

I'm not sure what it is you meant, but cultures that glorify rape or call on fellow members to live off the work of other cultures certainly seem different from the one I was raised in, for example.

What does that have to do with anything in non-idiot land?

[Aimless]

I think we are talking about two different things. I'm referring to skin color being the reason for arrests and incarceration so I used an example of a very different culture with different arrest rates but still the same general skin tone as another ethnic group. The point being that people's choices (heavily influenced by culture) are FAR more likely to be the reason they are arrested or convicted then race.

Jesus christ man I'm talking about the fact that "race" =/= skin-color. That's why even you can easily recognize a person as being "Asian" no matter how fair their skin.

[RandBlade]

That's not the unreasonable part, it's the fact that it's not enforced equally. As a white person you're roughly ten times less likely to be caught in the first place.

Evidence for that has not been demonstrated. If you are more likely to be guilty then you are more likely to be searched - and that is not simply about profiling. Certain neighbourhoods have certain problems and in those neighbourhoods where drugs are a major problem then those that live/work in those neighbourhoods are going to be far more likely to be stopped and searched. This is not ethnic profiling, this is simple common sense.

I live in a town where drugs are not considered a major problem. This town happens to be 95.9% White and 2.59% South Asian according to the 2011 census and all those Whites and South Asians (and any others) will be less likely to be searched for drugs than in a town or city where drugs are a major problem.

Instead the local Policing priorities appear to be alcohol and driving. I have been stopped and breathalysed repeatedly - had I been guilty of drinking and driving I would have been charged and lost my licence and gone to prison - would that be ethnic profiling or not?
I have been caught by a mobile speed trap once - for which I was charged a fine and given points on my licence. I have driven through mobile speed traps probably hundreds of other times - because of not breaking the law on those occassions nothing has come from it.

Why don't you explain the justice in blacks being about twice as likely to be charged for possession of marijuana or cocaine, while both have roughly the same percentage of marijuana use and whites are in fact far more likely to use cocaine?

I would definitely like to see the evidence here which was categorically not in the OP. So you are claiming just to be clear that whites have a higher drug use than blacks, so I imagine in your opinion it'd be reasonable for whites to have a higher arrest/charge rate?

[Nessus]

What does that have to do with anything in non-idiot land?

I find your idea of idiot disclusionary and racist

[Flixy]

I looked it up before posting to be sure, but am at my parents now, will post the source after the weekend. It was about the US, not UK,I admit. IIRC total substance abuse (all types of drugs and alcohol), native Americans did by far the worst (mostly alcoholism), blacks a bit worse than whites, and Asians best overall. But for weed, blacks only did slightly worse, and use far less cocaine.

But come on, it's a well known fact that cocaine users are mostly white. And I also think you underestimate the prevalence of cocaine use in your area, granted, it's less easy to notice.

[RandBlade]

I'm only going on what Cheshire Police themselves have said are their local priorities (specifically told "alcohol not drugs") and personal experience. Go 20 miles away from my town and into the cities of Liverpool and Manchester and then drugs become a concern.

I'm also fairly liberal/libertarian on drugs. I don't care what people take so long as it doesn't affect others. If it does affect others - eg dirty used needles being left for people to step on, secondary crimes etc then I'm concerned.

I was talking the other day to a friend who works sometimes as a second job as a bouncer in Manchester. He says he's been shot at once but the real danger they need to look out for is getting threatened with dirty needles. People have taken to using needles as a weapon as if you get cut with a knife you can get First Aid and continue, if you get jabbed with a needle you need to leave immediately to get urgent medical assistance. Sick.

[Ominous Gamer]

I live in a town where drugs are not considered a major problem. This town happens to be 95.9% White and 2.59% South Asian according to the 2011 census and all those Whites and South Asians (and any others) will be less likely to be searched for drugs than in a town or city where drugs are a major problem.

I'm only going on what Cheshire Police themselves have said are their local priorities (specifically told "alcohol not drugs") and personal experience. Go 20 miles away from my town and into the cities of Liverpool and Manchester and then drugs become a concern.

This says nothing for the prevalence of hard (or more casual) drugs in established white neighborhoods.

[RandBlade]

This says nothing for the prevalence of hard (or more casual) drugs in established white neighborhoods.

No it but it does say something (not everything as anecdotal) about the prevalence of Police priorities (based on local needs) in certain neighbourhoods. This is an anecdotal case but not remotely unusual.

It is "well known" as Flixy put it that the major drug problems are in 'inner city' neighbourhoods. The ethnic mix of 'inner city' neighbourhoods is different to that in suburban and rural ones.

Even without racism factors those where there are problems are more likely to be subject to random stops than those outside those areas. If the Police are legitimately taking local needs into account and there is an ethnic disparity between areas with certain problems and areas without then that will - without racism - result in a disparity in such random stops.

As such I - in a town where the big Police concerns are alcohol and driving - am much more likely to be stopped to be searched for drink driving than for drugs. And I have been, as I've said previously I've been breathalysed (and passed of course) multiple times. Not once did I prescribe that to racism though.

Lets look at why there are problems in certain inner city neighbourhoods and what can be done to fix them rather than knee-jerk react to dodgy nationalised statistics and cry "racism" then feel smug and move on doing nothing.

PS Its worth noting that we don't have a proclaimed "War on Drugs" - drugs are illegal not as much as in the USA a priority just for their own sake. Where drug abuse becomes a menace to society then that becomes a local concern and dealt with. Where drugs are taken discretely and without causing crimes or nuisance then its less of a priority. So it makes sense for eg Merseyside Police or Greater Manchester Police 20 miles each way from here to use their limited resources in their Inner Cities where it is a major problem, but for Cheshire Police to use their limited resources tackling local issues. Or do you disagree?

There seem to be 3 options for the Police:
1: Zero tolerance war on drugs across the entire nation superceding what could be otherwise more problematic crimes.
2: Dealing with crimes that happen based on the damage done and the local priorities.
3: Totally ignore one subset of crime.

I fail to see why we should go to either extreme and why what's happening now is a "bad thing". Ethnic profiling is bad, localised targetting is good.

[Aimless]

I find your idea of idiot disclusionary and racist

Let me rephrase my question: what does your question have to do with anything?

[Nessus]

If a smart commentator such as yourself seems to imply the answer is 'nothing', then surely that must be the correct answer.

[Aimless]

If a smart commentator such as yourself seems to imply the answer is 'nothing', then surely that must be the correct answer.

To be fair, it has a great deal to do with your unfounded racism, there's that at least.

[Nessus]

Now I'm curious what you'd consider 'founded' racism, but I wouldn't wish to upset you.

[Illusions]

Now I'm curious what you'd consider 'founded' racism, but I wouldn't wish to upset you.

Gingers don't have souls?


I understand that gingers aren't a race.


...I'll let myself out.

[Aimless]

Now I'm curious what you'd consider 'founded' racism, but I wouldn't wish to upset you.

*shrugs* I just wanted to emphasise that your racism is unfounded in case you were under any delusions about the legitimacy of whatever argument it was you wanted to make about cultural differences and race. Even though I can't think of any examples of "founded racism", I think you might believe that your racism is well-founded. My phrasing reflects what I think you think. Does that clarify things for you?

[Nessus]

Not particularly, just being angry at someone isn't very liable to change their minds. But that wasn't your goal anyway, was it? Much more satisfying to vent.

[Aimless]

Not particularly, just being angry at someone isn't very liable to change their minds. But that wasn't your goal anyway, was it? Much more satisfying to vent.

Of course my goal isn't to change your mind not only does no-one really know what your mind is, because you make sure we can't, but there is also no hope of my ever being able to change what I think it is. But to clarify the previous posts: I believe what you were doing was expressing racist views that you hold to, and I told you that those racist views are unfounded. I also questioned the legitimacy and relevance of any point you were trying to make with your remark about people who encourage rape and leeching off of the state. I'll concede that I couldn't get a really clear signal there, so I may have missed something about your post that'd change my opinion on it, and I'd welcome clarification about what it was you were getting at.

[Nessus]

Of course my goal isn't to change your mind not only does no-one really know what your mind is, because you make sure we can't, but there is also no hope of my ever being able to change what I think it is. But to clarify the previous posts: I believe what you were doing was expressing racist views that you hold to, and I told you that those racist views are unfounded. I also questioned the legitimacy and relevance of any point you were trying to make with your remark about people who encourage rape and leeching off of the state. I'll concede that I couldn't get a really clear signal there, so I may have missed something about your post that'd change my opinion on it, and I'd welcome clarification about what it was you were getting at.

I'm going to separate two things out of this, for the sake of my own thinking if nothing else (and you've already cast me into a role where that's only fitting), so I'm sorry if that confuses the issue further.

Saying, axiomatically, that all racism is unfounded is pretty meaningless when it comes to discussion or conveying information. I could say that Josif Stalin is the sun around which all culture revolves, but that does not get us anywhere closer to what physical, manifest reality actually holds. You can tell me what you like, but if you're unwilling to enter into the usual tit-for-tat between the savage and the civilized educator (role you've obviously cast for yourself), we're going nowhere slow.

What Lewkowski was originally saying was about how certain cultures lead to, shall we say, less productive outcomes. It is a simple statistical fact that in, for instance Finland, foreign-born rapists are over-represented per respective capita each year. It's a statistical fact that the ratio between those supported by and those making a living is 2 among "native" Finns and 10 within the imported population of heroes of the horn. If a Mohammedan cleric declares to his followers that it is the will of God himself that a Mohammedan "fifth column" should strive to destroy, by way of bankruptcy, the Western state they've found themselves in, that to me sounds like a genuine clash between cultures. And you are as familiar as I am about the attitudes towards women touted in arguably negroid musical circles, eagerly consumed and fawned over by negroids. I think all of these things, circumstantial as they may be, support Lewkowski's argument that not all cultures are created equals.

Naturally, this is an equally moot point as we must, fairly arbitrarily, decide the criteria by which we value cultures and peoples. You've shown that your axioms are different from mine (and possibly Lewkowski's, but I don't claim to speak for him), and therefore this entire exercise only serves the purpose of making you feel better about yourself. I have no objections to that, I'm probably healthier for you than chocolate, but I'm old-fashioned and prefer calling spades spades.

[Veldan Rath]

It's appears there are differences in what some members here think what 'culture' means.

I'm a bit surprised that Aimless is calling Ness racist for pointing out what a 'leader' in a community actually said and then calling him on it.

[Aimless]

Saying, axiomatically, that all racism is unfounded is pretty meaningless when it comes to discussion or conveying information. I could say that Josif Stalin is the sun around which all culture revolves, but that does not get us anywhere closer to what physical, manifest reality actually holds. You can tell me what you like, but if you're unwilling to enter into the usual tit-for-tat between the savage and the civilized educator (role you've obviously cast for yourself), we're going nowhere slow.

*shrugs* I'm fairly sure the burden of proof is on you when you claim to have good reasons for being a racist.

What Lewkowski was originally saying was about how certain cultures lead to, shall we say, less productive outcomes.

Culture =/= race. Do you know what race is? Even in the informal sense?

It is a simple statistical fact that in, for instance Finland, foreign-born rapists are over-represented per respective capita each year.

That's the statistical analysis of a simpleton. In reality, it's only a "simple statistical fact" that foreign-born people are over-represented among rapes that are reported, and possibly among rapes that lead to a conviction. In reality, the actual number of rapes that occur in Finland every year are likely to be far, FAR higher, mostly unreported, and the vast majority of those are suspected to be commited by someone close to the victim, making reports less likely.

We all know Finns are kinda racist so I reckon most of those perpetrators are not in fact foreign-born. We also know that ethnic Finns tend to be drunken douchebags (just ask any Swede about how wonderful Finns are) so I reckon it's the ethnic Finns we should be shaking down for rapists, once they sober up. We also know that such "simple statistical facts" as the one you refer to are so simple that they just BARELY account for demographic factors, do even worse with psychological and socioeconomic factors, and come with no qualitative analyses. As such, they're kinda worthless.

With all that said, it's entirely possible that, even after accounting for all relevant non-racial explanatory variables, foreign-born people may be significantly over-represented among rapists. However, that would once again bring us back to the issue of culture =/= race. Anecdotally, I--unlike you--consort with both immigrants and Swedes from different backgrounds and with varying views on various things. The most disgusting attitudes towards women and towards humans in general that I've heard from these people have come from ethnic Swedes. Sweden, fyi, is considered by some to be the rape-capital of the West, and it's not exactly known for being the most ethnically diverse country in the West.

It's a statistical fact that the ratio between those supported by and those making a living is 2 among "native" Finns and 10 within the imported population of heroes of the horn.

*shrugs* On the whole immigrants are not much more likely than ethnic Swedes to be reliant on welfare in spite of the extraordinary racism that immigrants face on the Swedish labour market that makes it so hard for them to even get interviews. If things are very different in Finland then that difference speaks as much towards the crappiness of Finland and Finnish society as it does towards any purported cultural differences. And, once again, culture =/= race.

If a Mohammedan cleric declares to his followers that it is the will of God himself that a Mohammedan "fifth column" should strive to destroy, by way of bankruptcy, the Western state they've found themselves in, that to me sounds like a genuine clash between cultures.

Sure, it sounds like a clash between cultures, and that statement brings us back to my original question: what does that have to do with anything? Just how many Finnish Muslims do you know that are following the cleric's advice and engaging in welfare-jihad? I don't know a single Swedish one personally. Just how many Muslim people in Finland do you think actually belong to that particular culture? And, finally, culture =/= race.

And you are as familiar as I am about the attitudes towards women touted in arguably negroid musical circles, eagerly consumed and fawned over by negroids. I think all of these things, circumstantial as they may be, support Lewkowski's argument that not all cultures are created equals.

What you and Lewk both fail to realise is that culture =/= race and that respect for the dignity of individual humans prohibits us from letting the police act as if race == culture. In Lewk's case it's because he's as thick as two thick planks nailed together, whereas in your case it's probably because you neither respect human dignity nor see people of other races as being human. Perhaps that's why you're inclined to abandon any intellectual integrity you have that would stop you from misusing circumstantial evidence.

Naturally, this is an equally moot point as we must, fairly arbitrarily, decide the criteria by which we value cultures and peoples. You've shown that your axioms are different from mine (and possibly Lewkowski's, but I don't claim to speak for him), and therefore this entire exercise only serves the purpose of making you feel better about yourself. I have no objections to that, I'm probably healthier for you than chocolate, but I'm old-fashioned and prefer calling spades spades.

Yeah look I'd be happy if you could drop the victim-act and start using words like "race" and "culture" properly before starting on spades. And btw, we all know spades are black, but anyone with eyes and a third grade education knows that some blacks are clubs.

[Aimless]

It's appears there are differences in what some members here think what 'culture' means.

I'm a bit surprised that Aimless is calling Ness racist for pointing out what a 'leader' in a community actually said and then calling him on it.

I'm not surprised that you're surprised, but what I'm doing is 1. saying that Nessie is racist and 2. that what a "leader" in a "community" says does not lend support to racism except to racists who conflate culture with race and forget people.

[Loki]

Nessus seems to be repeatedly conflating culture with race. I'd be curious to know what the black culture is. In America, it's fairly clear, because most blacks identify as being part of the same cultural grouping (the exception is African immigrants, who frequently don't subscribe to that culture). In specific European countries, there might also be a somewhat homogeneous black population. But if we're talking about the black race as a whole (to the extent that race is a meaningful concept), is anyone really prepared to argue that there are strong cultural similarities between the black people of America, the Caribbean, South America, Western Africa, Eastern Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australasia? Nessus mentioned the Islam angle, but there are far more Christian blacks than Muslim ones.

[Nessus]

I just wrote out quote tags instead of copy-pasting the one with the tag to your post, Aimless, but I'm sure we both know I'm just quoting your latest post. Sorry if this hampers readability!

*shrugs* I'm fairly sure the burden of proof is on you when you claim to have good reasons for being a racist.

Why? Assuming I have, I don't recall either way.

Culture =/= race. Do you know what race is? Even in the informal sense?

In honour of you finding pretty much all the stereotypical fall-backs of the "tolerant" green-lefts, I'ma go with "race is a social construction". How's that?

That's the statistical analysis of a simpleton. In reality, it's only a "simple statistical fact" that foreign-born people are over-represented among rapes that are reported, and possibly among rapes that lead to a conviction. In reality, the actual number of rapes that occur in Finland every year are likely to be far, FAR higher, mostly unreported, and the vast majority of those are suspected to be commited by someone close to the victim, making reports less likely.

We all know Finns are kinda racist so I reckon most of those perpetrators are not in fact foreign-born. We also know that ethnic Finns tend to be drunken douchebags (just ask any Swede about how wonderful Finns are) so I reckon it's the ethnic Finns we should be shaking down for rapists, once they sober up. We also know that such "simple statistical facts" as the one you refer to are so simple that they just BARELY account for demographic factors, do even worse with psychological and socioeconomic factors, and come with no qualitative analyses. As such, they're kinda worthless.

With all that said, it's entirely possible that, even after accounting for all relevant non-racial explanatory variables, foreign-born people may be significantly over-represented among rapists. However, that would once again bring us back to the issue of culture =/= race. Anecdotally, I--unlike you--consort with both immigrants and Swedes from different backgrounds and with varying views on various things. The most disgusting attitudes towards women and towards humans in general that I've heard from these people have come from ethnic Swedes. Sweden, fyi, is considered by some to be the rape-capital of the West, and it's not exactly known for being the most ethnically diverse country in the West.

Hang on just a minute there Hoss, I like your steed but you're riding awful high. I'm saying we have numerical data which displays foreign-born (and yes, thereby from a different culture) as more likely rapists, and you fall back on...Racism? Surely whitey rapes and beats and who knows what else, no one just tells anyone! That's real convincing.

If your axiom of choice is that the "plight" of the negroid, or the hair-palm, is the oppression they feel due to white society structurally discriminating them, then sure, it's perfectly reasonable to just blithely assume that whites rape in record numbers but no one hears about it because racism. Over here in the "idiot-land", or whatever it was you told me my place of residence was, we look at actual factual evidence. Not suspicion based solely on racial discrimination, which you so gleefully demonstrate. (All the while remaining the pure, virtuous educator, of course.)

*shrugs* On the whole immigrants are not much more likely than ethnic Swedes to be reliant on welfare in spite of the extraordinary racism that immigrants face on the Swedish labour market that makes it so hard for them to even get interviews. If things are very different in Finland then that difference speaks as much towards the crappiness of Finland and Finnish society as it does towards any purported cultural differences. And, once again, culture =/= race.

Ah, yes, of course! It is the fault of the host society that the bacillus isn't thriving! How silly of me!

A study released this spring categorically demonstrates the fact you quoted. It is not somehow the responsibility of the Finnish tax payer to fund uneducated, racist and misogynistic bucks that the "tolerant" green-left are insistent on importing. Nor is it the responsibility of the tax payer to fund endless government agencies whose sole purpose is to bleat and wring hands about these representatives of a different race and culture, who just haven't had enough help from the public sector.

If you do not speak the local language, do not know what a hammer is (this one is an anecdote, but you set a precedent), and have a "varied conception" of things such as work ethic, the place of women in society, and whether or not it's a-okay to flay some genitals apart, I am not surprised you'd have a hard time finding gainful employment.

Sure, it sounds like a clash between cultures, and that statement brings us back to my original question: what does that have to do with anything? Just how many Finnish Muslims do you know that are following the cleric's advice and engaging in welfare-jihad? I don't know a single Swedish one personally. Just how many Muslim people in Finland do you think actually belong to that particular culture? And, finally, culture =/= race.

Who died and made me kommissar of Mohammedans? What difference does it make to anything how many Mohammedans I personally know? One need only look at the societies they've fashioned for themselves, and the sworn statements of their clerics that it is the only acceptable order anywhere in the world, and make the next logical step.

What you and Lewk both fail to realise is that culture =/= race and that respect for the dignity of individual humans prohibits us from letting the police act as if race == culture. In Lewk's case it's because he's as thick as two thick planks nailed together, whereas in your case it's probably because you neither respect human dignity nor see people of other races as being human. Perhaps that's why you're inclined to abandon any intellectual integrity you have that would stop you from misusing circumstantial evidence.

You've got great big brass balls (not intended in any way to refer to your skin colour or culture of choice, which is mostly not your own) to come and cry about "intellectual integrity" after this pile of garbage you managed to vomit out. If there were a gymnasiet writing competition on who managed to be the most heart-string-tugging teenager without rhyme or reason, you'd come right on top. You blatantly fantasize up racist day-dreams when presented with actual hard facts, and that's just the running start. Please.

Yeah look I'd be happy if you could drop the victim-act and start using words like "race" and "culture" properly before starting on spades. And btw, we all know spades are black, but anyone with eyes and a third grade education knows that some blacks are clubs.

It is hardly an act when you come at me rather viciously and seemingly for little reason. Or with little reason, either. I don't expect you to be polite or "intellectually integrate", but your tone certainly is taking a turn toward the worse.

[Nessus]

Nessus seems to be repeatedly conflating culture with race. I'd be curious to know what the black culture is. In America, it's fairly clear, because most blacks identify as being part of the same cultural grouping (the exception is African immigrants, who frequently don't subscribe to that culture). In specific European countries, there might also be a somewhat homogeneous black population. But if we're talking about the black race as a whole (to the extent that race is a meaningful concept), is anyone really prepared to argue that there are strong cultural similarities between the black people of America, the Caribbean, South America, Western Africa, Eastern Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Australasia? Nessus mentioned the Islam angle, but there are far more Christian blacks than Muslim ones.

I don't disagree that there are several cultures fashioned by our dark-skinned friends, but by and large it seems none are worth spit. Which is what Lewkowski's argument boils down to, at least in my reading, he may disagree.

[Aimless]

Why? Assuming I have, I don't recall either way.

You're the one making a positive and fairly extraordinary (read: dumb) claim while I'm just pointing out the fact that race =/= culture so I'm fairly sure I'm right about where the burden of proof lies.

In honour of you finding pretty much all the stereotypical fall-backs of the "tolerant" green-lefts, I'ma go with "race is a social construction". How's that?

I'd say that's a D- even if you believe people think black skin and funny eyes are "social constructs". "Race" has always primarily been in reference to biology, even though biological differences between races may be smaller than differences between individuals. In today's discussion, "race" is mostly used in reference to observable and mostly heritable physical features. If you believe that a person's black skin in and of itself justifies treating him as a de facto thug and a gangster then you fail at logic, and that's just the beginning.

Hang on just a minute there Hoss, I like your steed but you're riding awful high. I'm saying we have numerical data which displays foreign-born (and yes, thereby from a different culture) as more likely rapists, and you fall back on...Racism? Surely whitey rapes and beats and who knows what else, no one just tells anyone! That's real convincing.

If your axiom of choice is that the "plight" of the negroid, or the hair-palm, is the oppression they feel due to white society structurally discriminating them, then sure, it's perfectly reasonably to just blithely assume that whites rape in record numbers but no one hears about it because racism. Over here in the "idiot-land", or whatever it was you told me my place of residence was, we look at actual factual evidence. Not suspicion based solely on racial discrimination)

And I'm saying 1. that you don't actually have the data you think you have, and 2. that neither the data you have nor the data you imagine having actually say what you want it to say.

The "numerical data" you refer to does not control adequately for demographic characteristics, nor does it control for socioeconomic variables or psychological/psychiatric variables. If you actually have numerical data that does control adequately for such factors, feel free to share the studies. The data you refer to also does not take into account the number of unreported rapes. Are you so blinded by your racism that you have forgotten that most rapes go unreported? The notion that unreported rapes vastly outnumber reported rapes should not be new to you if you've ever done any sober reading on the plight of your gender. The notion that the majority of rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances and people with whom the victim has some sort of established relationship should also not be new to you. The notion that you can't draw the conclusions you want to draw from a severely flawed and limited dataset should also not be new to you. But, on second thought, perhaps it IS news to you that a dataset with very incomplete data may be useless and biased, but, Nessie, you have to remember that you're talking about a heterogenous and imperfect real world here.

Re. your counter-accusation of racism, I don't think that a person's white skin justifies treating him as a likely rapist, even were I to believe that ethnic Finns are more likely to be rapists than foreign-born Finns. Because you're such a racist and devour conspiracy theories, you believe that my claim about most rapes being unreported is founded on prejudices against members of the white Finnish race. In fact I started out from the often-observed realities that most rapes seem to go unreported, that most rapes in the West seem to be committed by acquaintances or people close to the victim, that such closeness between victim and perpetrator seem to make reporting less likely. I tagged on a few remarks about what that's likely to mean about the races of rapists in Finland but anyone with half a brain should be able to see that that was what they call "baiting" which I wanted to flavour with racism so that you could get an idea of how vile it really tastes.

Ah, yes, of course! It is the fault of the host society that the bacillus isn't thriving! How silly of me!

A study released this spring categorically demonstrates the fact you quoted. It is not somehow the responsibility of the Finnish tax payer to fund uneducated, racist and misogynistic bucks that the "tolerant" green-left are insistent on importing. Nor is it the responsibility of the tax payer to fund endless government agencies whose sole purpose is to bleat and wring hands about these representatives of a different race and culture, who just haven't had enough help from the public sector.

If you do not speak the local language, do not know what a hammer is (this one is an anecdote, but you set a precedent), and have a "varied conception" of things such as work ethic, the place of women in society, and whether or not it's a-okay to flay some genitals apart, I am not surprised you'd have a hard time finding gainful employment.

You're not surprised because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

If a person with a Muslim name can't even get an interview with the same formal qualifications that'll land a person with a Finnish name a hundred interviews, then, yes, it is the fault of the host society, because a name alone doesn't tell you whether or not a person knows the Finnish word for "hammer". If immigrants are systematically excluded by Finnish society, then, yes, it might actually be your fault if they have a hard time getting into Finnish society. If immigrants are systematically given worse educations in Finland than ethnic and wealthy Finns are, then, yes, it may in fact be the fault of an incompetent state and, in extension, Finnish society.

It is absolutely the responsibility of the Finnish tax-payer to support the integration and the good treatment of every single immigrant you import, as long as you've decided to import them and give them the rights accorded to other human beings and citizens in your country. A legal responsibility, because your laws aren't founded on racism. A pragmatic responsibility, because you don't want your society to turn into a hell-hole. An ethical responsibility, because, well there are so many reasons. If you've decided to import them for real-reals then you have the same responsibilities towards them, as a tax-payer, as you have towards any ethnic Finn that wastes your money through alcoholism, criminality, drunken assault, unemployment, etc. If you believe that bad behaviour justifies exclusion from or abandonment by society, mistreatment etc. then you should feel the same way about ethnic Finns who misbehave.

The fact that your language is kinda retarded is another important matter and, on the topic of retarded, do you have any idea how retarded it is for a member of a welfare state to whine about people who feel entitled?

Who died and made me kommissar of Mohammedans? What difference does it make to anything how many Mohammedans I personally know? One need only look at the societies they've fashioned for themselves, and the sworn statements of their clerics that it is the only acceptable order anywhere in the world, and make the next logical step.

Unless the Finnish police is about to arrest Pakistan, I repeat: Just how many Finnish Muslims do you know that are following the cleric's advice and engaging in welfare-jihad? Just how many Muslim people in Finland do you think actually belong to that particular culture?

What difference does it make? Well, for starters, it might help you wake up to the fact that, just because a person is a Muslim, doesn't mean he agrees with what hate-filled extremists have to say. It is retarded--and typical of the ignorant racist--to conflate culture with race and to believe that extremists speak for everyone all over the world even remotely like them. In reality, a Muslim person, an individual, can actually choose to not engage in Welfare Jihad. Most of them choose not to leech off of the state any more than anyone else does. Do you have proof saying otherwise?

If you still don't get it, let me be the first to treat you henceforth as if you are Dreadnaught.

You've got great big brass balls (not intended in any way to refer to your skin colour or culture of choice, which is mostly not your own) to come and cry about "intellectual integrity" after this pile of garbage you managed to vomit out. If there were a gymnasiet writing competition on who managed to be the most heart-string-tugging teenager without rhyme or reason, you'd come right on top. You blatantly fantasize up racist day-dreams when presented with actual hard facts, and that's just the running start. Please.

Look man, I'm just calling a spade a spade and I'm right in my assertions that you're using the terms "culture" and "race" incorrectly, that you're making simple and unacceptable errors of reasoning, and that you failed to critically appraise the data you tried to summon in defense of your silly beliefs. I don't need to tug on any heart-strings; It's easy enough to dispassionately dismantle your delusions.

It is hardly an act when you come at me rather viciously and seemingly for little reason. Or with little reason, either. I don't expect you to be polite or "intellectually integrate", but your tone certainly is taking a turn toward the worse.

How do you expect me to treat a delusional racist no better than the likes of Lewk (and possibly worse)? Shouldn't you be happy to be treated better than you'd treat my brothers? Suck it up and take it like a man.

[Aimless]

And what's this nonsense about immigrant work ethic?

[Veldan Rath]

Muslim is a race?

Let's go with Ness is prejudiced , maybe bigoted, but not going with true rasict. Cause, you like splitting hairs all day.

[GGT]

Evidence for that [unequal enforcement] has not been demonstrated. If you are more likely to be guilty then you are more likely to be searched - and that is not simply about profiling.

Sounds like circular reasoning to support your pre-conceived notions about, and excuses for, certain law enforcement tactics. What the hell does "more likely to be guilty" mean in the UK anyway?

Certain neighbourhoods have certain problems and in those neighbourhoods where drugs are a major problem then those that live/work in those neighbourhoods are going to be far more likely to be stopped and searched. This is not ethnic profiling, this is simple common sense.

I live in a town where drugs are not considered a major problem. This town happens to be 95.9% White and 2.59% South Asian according to the 2011 census and all those Whites and South Asians (and any others) will be less likely to be searched for drugs than in a town or city where drugs are a major problem.

Your predominantly white neighborhood is more likely to be using/abusing/trading/selling "legal drugs" like prescription meds or alcohol, according to 2011 census and WHO data. Ditto for universities or colleges famous for underaged drinking, 'sharing' prescriptions for ADD or anxiety or insomnia. So it depends on what you and your police consider "drugs", and whom to search.

Instead the local Policing priorities appear to be alcohol and driving. I have been stopped and breathalysed repeatedly - had I been guilty of drinking and driving I would have been charged and lost my licence and gone to prison - would that be ethnic profiling or not?

Hard to compare a tiny British town's "local" policing policy with the US, but you were probably stopped for specific driving behavior --- speeding, weaving in and out of lanes, aggressive driving --- or due to violations like a burnt out brake light or expired tags. Performing a breathalyzer is the next step in some of that driving behavior.

We sometimes have county or regional Drunk Driver Dragnets, where every single driver has to pass through a police barricade, but it's usually on state roads/highways and in cooperation with State Police. They're fairly rare now....because they mostly pissed off hundreds of drivers, choked traffic and caused back-ups and delays, and only caught a couple of drunk drivers in the process.

I have been caught by a mobile speed trap once - for which I was charged a fine and given points on my licence. I have driven through mobile speed traps probably hundreds of other times - because of not breaking the law on those occassions nothing has come from it.

Wait, are you trying to compare walking down the street and being stopped-and-frisked, to driving through speed traps and getting a fine in the mail? Seriously?

I would definitely like to see the evidence here which was categorically not in the OP. So you are claiming just to be clear that whites have a higher drug use than blacks, so I imagine in your opinion it'd be reasonable for whites to have a higher arrest/charge rate?

I looked it up before posting to be sure, but am at my parents now, will post the source after the weekend. It was about the US, not UK,I admit. IIRC total substance abuse (all types of drugs and alcohol), native Americans did by far the worst (mostly alcoholism), blacks a bit worse than whites, and Asians best overall. But for weed, blacks only did slightly worse, and use far less cocaine.

But come on, it's a well known fact that cocaine users are mostly white. And I also think you underestimate the prevalence of cocaine use in your area, granted, it's less easy to notice.

Flixy is right. Drug use by race and income are similar among western nations. The biggest disparities are in policies and implementations that favor wealth and privilege, ie whites.

[Lewkowski]

I don't disagree that there are several cultures fashioned by our dark-skinned friends, but by and large it seems none are worth spit. Which is what Lewkowski's argument boils down to, at least in my reading, he may disagree.

My argument is that certain cultures have different outcomes based on the values they hold. The 'thug life' culture (which does NOT include all blacks) is obviously shallow and worse then other cultures. The point of my argument is that racism is not the cause of higher arrest and conviction rates, the actions of the people getting arrested is. I'm getting tired of the grouping by black/white/Asian - most people don't care what race they are. What matters is their belief structure. Is stealing OK? Should you avoid harming others? Should you not take what isn't yours (through redistribution or flat out theft). These are cultural issues not racial issues.