What kind of country have we become

[Vorpal]

Has anyone dismissed the negative experiences of others at the hands of (supply ethnic group name)?

Implicitly Vorpal's post did dismiss the personal accounts of several posters' negative experiences, by effectively trivialising those accounts and those posters' experiences as just being a pretext for prejudice.

Denying that something bad has happened or dismissing it, because it does not fit with how someone wants to see the world, is ultimately harmful and counter-productive. By way of an analogy, when the Met Police announced the beginning of Operation Trident to tackle violent crime committed by members of the black community on other members of the black community, they were accused by some of racism in suggesting that black people were disproportionately more likely to commit such crimes (as well as being the victim of them). However, the statistics bore them out, and it made sense to develop policing strategy based on what was actually happening in order to reduce the number of those incidents and victims. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Met was deemed institutionally racist following the report into Stephen Lawrence's death, and the wider issues for society of the fact that if, say, young black men born in Brixton are statistically more likely to be involved in violent crime their colour has nothing to do with it, except inasmuch as the racism, poverty, social and educational disadvantages and lack of opportunities they face due to their colour are a cause.

My impression is that a number have used their singular negative experience to stereotype a whole group whilst others have merely pointed out that this singular negative experience is, well, singular and therefore no justification for stereotyping vast groups of people of whom they know nothing.

When multiple people have the the same or similar negative experience, it may no longer be 'singular'. There may be confirmation bias involved, and people who have had negative experiences are more likely to be vocal about their experience than those who have had positive (or no) experiences. Nevertheless denying that there is a problem with crime and anti-social behaviour by some Travellers, is not going to help us to get to grips with the underlying causes and the best solutions.

I did not dismiss anything. I don't doubt that people have had negative experiences.

I agree that we examining the underlying issues related to crime and anti-social behaviour is important. I furthermore agree that these can vary from one group to another. However, it is also important to acknowledge that biases and prejudice play a role, not just in the crime itself, but also how we talk about it. That includes phrase like, 'a problem with crime and anti-social behaviour by some Travellers', which implies at the very least, that they deserves some sort of special (negative) attention.

Regarding statistics... Offending by black people (or that matter Roma and Travallers) has not, AFIK ever been demonstrated to be higher than by non-Traveller white people. But arrests and conviction certainly are. And people furthermore, use the statistics on arrests and conviction to demonstrate that offending rates are higher. As long as we target minority populations in searches and responding to events, they will continue to have higher arrest and conviction rates. The system is inherently prejudiced.

And disadvantaged groups are falling further behind. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... her-behind

Society has marginalised Travellers, and they have responded in kind. Yes, it is a problem, but not one that can be solved by anecdotes of anti-social behaviour.

[Cugel]

Has anyone dismissed the negative experiences of others at the hands of (supply ethnic group name)?

Implicitly Vorpal's post did dismiss the personal accounts of several posters' negative experiences, by effectively trivialising those accounts and those posters' experiences as just being a pretext for prejudice.

Denying that something bad has happened or dismissing it, because it does not fit with how someone wants to see the world, is ultimately harmful and counter-productive.

(snip)

But is anyone doing that? No one has denied that some (ethnic or so-called race-name group member) has committed an egregious act. And, as you mention, a plethora of reports about the bad-acts of one group or another can represent both a confirmation bias in the reporting (with no greater crime rate than in other groups) as well as a greater crime rate due to the group in question reacting badly to various kinds of persecution. Neither case justifies a stereotyping of the complete group and all of it's members as somehow inherently bad.

My impression is that a number have used their singular negative experience to stereotype a whole group whilst others have merely pointed out that this singular negative experience is, well, singular and therefore no justification for stereotyping vast groups of people of whom they know nothing.

When multiple people have the the same or similar negative experience, it may no longer be 'singular'. There may be confirmation bias involved, and people who have had negative experiences are more likely to be vocal about their experience than those who have had positive (or no) experiences. Nevertheless denying that there is a problem with crime and anti-social behaviour by some Travellers, is not going to help us to get to grips with the underlying causes and the best solutions.

There's a difference between condemning a whole group as inherently bad and recognising that the group is statistically more inclined to contain bad actors. But perhaps neither attitude is of use since they neither explain nor solve the problem of the bad-acts. As you intimate, some groups seem to produce more bad actors than others. If this is a serious social problem, rather than the unavoidable & random everyday occurrence of some bad humans doing a some bad things, then any useful discussion would be about the reasons, causes and potentially the solutions.

Rarely do we see much attempt to explain why so many "bad traveller" stories emerge, for example. Is it conformation bias? Is there something inherent in various gypsy, traveller, potter, pikey or whatever culture that tends to produce criminality? Are they just persecuted and scapegoated wherever possible? If there is a real prevalence of criminality, is this their reaction to persecution or some other denial of opportunities to lead a better life?

Many facts require clarification or even definition. After all, what defines "a traveller"? Many don't travel but live in houses like you & me.

Some groupings seem to be entirely artificial, reflecting a justification and means to persecute. There is, for example, no such thing as different human races (let alone a black race); "race" is a term invented by Medieval Christian culture and refined in an entirely pseudo-scientific fashion by The Victorians as part of their means to justify colonial exploitation and crimes of various egregious kinds. Yet the invention of the notion of "a black race" has generated a vast history of persecution and various reactions to those persecutions by those persecuted, including perhaps a lesser inhibition to performing bad acts when constantly told that they are inherently bad actors then punished for it even before the bad acts occur.

A lot of the definitions and associated stereotypes that underpin the various us & them attitudes are entirely caused by the artificial definitions of "us" and of "them". This is most evident when football hooligans have their wars despite being identical in virtually all of their behaviours, attitudes, physical appearance and so forth. Their only difference is the artificial classification of, say, Mackem or Toon supporter.

Just because my skin is yellowish rather than pinkish, or I have a thin straight nose rather than a wide one with a curve in it, doesn't mean I can be classified as anything other than "a bloke with various physical attributes signifying nothing other than an insignificant gene twitch". And I can be both peripatetic and a good samaritan. Or a policeman and a socialist. etcetera. Identity politics can never be party politics as there are so many identities that any human can have, all at the same time.

Cugel

[Cours]

The same patently xenophobic and hyperbolic claims were only recently labelled agaist the Poles and any one that hailed from an Eastern european background. I'm going repeat those ridiculously unfounded claims, suffice to say its much easier to label an entire ethnic group for the domestic problems a country faces than tackle those same problems. Of domestic origin. Thats how web got this far down the yellow brick road of Brexit.

Its pathetic.

[irc]

people furthermore, use the statistics on arrests and conviction to demonstrate that offending rates are higher. As long as we target minority populations in searches and responding to events, they will continue to have higher arrest and conviction rates. The system is inherently prejudiced.

Maybe the statistics just reflect a reality. Taking another example, that of knife crime among Glasgow and west of Scotland working class males. Arrests and conviction rates are far higher than among middle class males. Why? Because working class males carry and use knives or other blades far more often. And we don't need to use stats to prove it. Looking around at males in any working class environment and a number will have facial scars from blades. It is common enough that it isn't commented on.

That said it is still a minority within working class areas who carry and use knives but it is a minority which is closer to zero in other areas. Knife use in the the west of Scotland is a cultural thing. Maybe among travellers the culture is that theft is more acceptable?

And as for Glasgow being used as an example of reducing knife crime the part commentators sometimes miss is that vast use of stop and search was an integral part of the policy.

In 2010, the rate of stop and search in Scotland was almost four times higher than the comparable rate in England and Wales, at 64 and 17 searches per 1000 people respectively.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... stopsearch

while prevention was a major part of the project: ‘Criminal justice still needed to be there and seen to be done swiftly. Sometimes it gets portrayed that we didn’t do that. But we increased stop and search, we spoke to the government and they changed the legislation to increase the sentence for carrying a knife. Things were bad and we needed to demonstrate we were serious.’

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/t ... -strategy/

[slowster]

However, it is also important to acknowledge that biases and prejudice play a role, not just in the crime itself, but also how we talk about it. That includes phrase like, 'a problem with crime and anti-social behaviour by some Travellers', which implies at the very least, that they deserves some sort of special (negative) attention.

The fact that you draw an inference as you do from that phrase, is itself suggestive of bias and prejudice. That some crimes and anti-social behaviour have been committed is a matter of fact. Rather than address that point and the anecdotes of those who posted their negative experiences by showing that they were not representative or providing an anecdote illustrating the opposite, you simply asserted that this was prejudice.

It seems that there is a compelling argument to be made that our social structures have developed in ways that are increasingly antithetical to the Traveller community, e.g. the mention above of something as basic as waste disposal being linked to council tax, which presupposes ownership/occupation of property rather than an itinerant family. I would be much more interested in reading an informed post about such underlying issues and their complexities, than a pithy accusation of prejudice.

Regarding statistics... Offending by black people (or that matter Roma and Travallers) has not, AFIK ever been demonstrated to be higher than by non-Traveller white people.

In the mid 90s the Met Commisioner took a lot of flak when he pointed out that there was a problem with mugging being disproportionately committed by young black men, but he was able to point to very clear statistical evidence that this was the case.

[slowster]

There's a difference between condemning a whole group as inherently bad and recognising that the group is statistically more inclined to contain bad actors. But perhaps neither attitude is of use since they neither explain nor solve the problem of the bad-acts. As you intimate, some groups seem to produce more bad actors than others. If this is a serious social problem, rather than the unavoidable & random everyday occurrence of some bad humans doing a some bad things, then any useful discussion would be about the reasons, causes and potentially the solutions.

Rarely do we see much attempt to explain why so many "bad traveller" stories emerge, for example. Is it conformation bias? Is there something inherent in various gypsy, traveller, potter, pikey or whatever culture that tends to produce criminality? Are they just persecuted and scapegoated wherever possible? If there is a real prevalence of criminality, is this their reaction to persecution or some other denial of opportunities to lead a better life?

Many facts require clarification or even definition. After all, what defines "a traveller"? Many don't travel but live in houses like you & me.

Cugel, in general I agree with you. If anything, I might question the concept that the group (or any group) is statistically more inclined to contain bad actors. It would not surprise me if the prevalence of serious criminals in the traveller community were no worse or better than in the rest of society, but rather that the small number that exists is both very prolific and much harder for the police to catch and successfully prosecute because of the closed and itinerant nature of the community. As this news article shows, one single family can have an extremely disproportionate impact on crime levels:

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/crimewave-cambridgeshire-suffolk-norfolk-gang-15361238

[Ben@Forest]

It should be recognised that any prejudice is not all one way. In a book called 'Gypsy Boy' the author, Mikey Walsh outlines his upbringing. It's a long time since l read it but his upbringing was hard and brutal and in a completely sexist environment. Much of it would be considered abuse by standards even when he was growing up. Illiteracy and poor schooling was normal.

The gypsies only trusted each other and wanted nobody else in their community/ environment. If you broke the gypsy's code, as Walsh did, you were out and maybe dead if they caught up with you. With such practices it's not surprising there's little contact between gypsies/travellers and other communities.

[pete75]

Only in your mind which ascribes opinions and beliefs to others which you can then criticise.

I have no opinion one way or the other on this subject, because I have had no direct involvement in the matter and no personal direct experiences. In a past life, I heard many accounts similar to those negative reports in some of the posts in this thread. I did not judge those accounts to be true or untrue or a distortion, I just heard them out. I then acted (or as the case might be, took no action ) in the same way I would have done anyway, regardless of whether their was any truth or not in the reports.

What I said is what your post implies. A past life? You're now claiming to be reincarnated?

You are being a bit literal Pete. Metaphors a bit much for you today?

Eh? I thought only reincarnated folk had past lives - am I wrong?

[pwa]

What I said is what your post implies. A past life? You're now claiming to be reincarnated?

You are being a bit literal Pete. Metaphors a bit much for you today?

Eh? I thought only reincarnated folk had past lives - am I wrong?

"Past life" taken literally means that, but in this case I suspect it is "past life" as a metaphor, meaning a previous phase of this life, so distant in the memory that it seems like another life. Or they could be reincarnated I suppose...

[Vorpal]

Rarely do we see much attempt to explain why so many "bad traveller" stories emerge, for example. Is it conformation bias? Is there something inherent in various gypsy, traveller, potter, pikey or whatever culture that tends to produce criminality? Are they just persecuted and scapegoated wherever possible? If there is a real prevalence of criminality, is this their reaction to persecution or some other denial of opportunities to lead a better life?

Many facts require clarification or even definition. After all, what defines "a traveller"? Many don't travel but live in houses like you & me.
Cugel

For the most part 'Traveller' is a self-identification. Ireland, at least have taken a look at what leads to a disproportionate number of Travellers in prison.

http://www.iprt.ie/files/IPRT_Travellers_Report_web.pdf

And in the UK, some folks have recognised the problems, but lack funding https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -education

However, it is also important to acknowledge that biases and prejudice play a role, not just in the crime itself, but also how we talk about it. That includes phrase like, 'a problem with crime and anti-social behaviour by some Travellers', which implies at the very least, that they deserves some sort of special (negative) attention.

The fact that you draw an inference as you do from that phrase, is itself suggestive of bias and prejudice. That some crimes and anti-social behaviour have been committed is a matter of fact. Rather than address that point and the anecdotes of those who posted their negative experiences by showing that they were not representative or providing an anecdote illustrating the opposite, you simply asserted that this was prejudice.

I did not assert that it was prejudice. I said it was important to acknowledge the role biases and prejudice play. If you substituted 'blacks' for 'Travellers' in that sentence?

In the mid 90s the Met Commisioner took a lot of flak when he pointed out that there was a problem with mugging being disproportionately committed by young black men, but he was able to point to very clear statistical evidence that this was the case.

He deserved the flak. He was never able to produce evidence that crime was disproportionately *committed* by young black men. Only that they were more likely to be accused.

In June 2010, through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Sunday Telegraph obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. 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. Robbery, drug use, and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s. In the 1980s and 1990s, the police associated robbery with black people. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon said that the majority of robberies in London were committed by black people

But a Longitudinal analysis of the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey, found that

Social class, ethnic group and religious participation were not significantly associated with increased or reduced likelihood of offending, ASB and drug use.

That, by the way, also includes Travellers and Roma.

[reohn2]

The same patently xenophobic and hyperbolic claims were only recently labelled agaist the Poles and any one that hailed from an Eastern european background. I'm going repeat those ridiculously unfounded claims, suffice to say its much easier to label an entire ethnic group for the domestic problems a country faces than tackle those same problems. Of domestic origin. Thats how web got this far down the yellow brick road of Brexit.

Its pathetic.

I have no problem with race,colour,nationality or creed so long as people live peacefully and within the law.

[pwa]

People tie themselves in knots over this stuff. Let's get back to basic principles.

Firstly, we must not assume that because someone belongs to a particular ethnic / religious group they are good, or bad. We don't know until we have found out more about them?

But we have to acknowledge that certain undesirable traits exist disproportionately in certain communities for whatever reason. Not to believe that requires one to believe the ridiculous notion that all communities have exactly the same level of each undesirable trait.

So let's address those issues in an honest way that has an outcome that is fair and humane for all concerned, correcting errant behaviour and without demonising any group.

[slowster]

However, it is also important to acknowledge that biases and prejudice play a role, not just in the crime itself, but also how we talk about it. That includes phrase like, 'a problem with crime and anti-social behaviour by some Travellers', which implies at the very least, that they deserves some sort of special (negative) attention.

The fact that you draw an inference as you do from that phrase, is itself suggestive of bias and prejudice. That some crimes and anti-social behaviour have been committed is a matter of fact. Rather than address that point and the anecdotes of those who posted their negative experiences by showing that they were not representative or providing an anecdote illustrating the opposite, you simply asserted that this was prejudice.

I did not assert that it was prejudice. I said it was important to acknowledge the role biases and prejudice play. If you substituted 'blacks' for 'Travellers' in that sentence?

I was referring to your original statement ("The OP asked what kind of a country have we become, and half the thread is people trying to demonstrate why prejudice against Travellers is justified"). Posters had recounted personal negative experiences, and you accused them of prejudice. That was an ad hominem. You did not provide any evidence or anecdotes to counter their negative experiences, you just dismissed them and the negative experiences they had by saying that they were prejudiced.

In the mid 90s the Met Commisioner took a lot of flak when he pointed out that there was a problem with mugging being disproportionately committed by young black men, but he was able to point to very clear statistical evidence that this was the case.

He deserved the flak. He was never able to produce evidence that crime was disproportionately *committed* by young black men. Only that they were more likely to be accused.

In June 2010, through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Sunday Telegraph obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. 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. Robbery, drug use, and gang violence have been associated with black people since the 1960s. In the 1980s and 1990s, the police associated robbery with black people. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police commissioner Paul Condon said that the majority of robberies in London were committed by black people

My recollection of the reporting of Paul Condon's statements was that they were certainly controversial at the time, and the statistics behind them were challenged, but I don't think it was decisively proven or accepted then that he was wrong to state what he did. The statistics you quote are from 2010, and I suspect that the methodologies of both the collection and the analysis of the data had been the focus of a lot of attention and work since 1995, and had improved substantially by that point, so I would not necessarily accept them as evidence that Paul Condon was wrong to say what he did in 1995 based on the data and statistics that were available to him at the time.

[Vorpal]

I was referring to your original statement ("The OP asked what kind of a country have we become, and half the thread is people trying to demonstrate why prejudice against Travellers is justified"). Posters had recounted personal negative experiences, and you accused them of prejudice. That was an ad hominem. You did not provide any evidence or anecdotes to counter their negative experiences, you just dismissed them and the negative experiences they had by saying that they were prejudiced.

People on this thread have used language that would generally be considered unacceptable were it applied to any other group of people. I find this all over the UK with regard to Travellers and Roma.

It is not an ad hominem to state or imply that generalising about a group of people is prejudice. It is the defintion of prejudice.

noun prejudice
1an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2 any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3 unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
4 such attitudes considered collectively:
The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5 damage or injury; detriment:
a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

verb (used with object), prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing.
6to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable:
His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.

[Canuk]

This entire thread has certainly defined intolerance and discrimination for me. Most of the above is indefensible. Imagine you pointed the same accusations at an arbitrary group, gay men for instance.

You'd be in court. And you'd be convicted.