5 ms·

> If it takes a day... You misunderstand. hueving didn't ask me for a citation for this point, he asked me to provide citations in general. I don't intend to s

> If it takes a day... You misunderstand. hueving didn't ask me for a citation for this point, he asked me to provide citations in general. I don't intend to spend MY day (not "a" day) providing citations for every statement I make in general. If people ask for a specific citation fair enough; that's not what happened here. > Do you have first-hand experience of this evidence, or are you just assured it exists by sources you consider "reasonable". I worked with the people who ran various RCTs for the police, and listened to them present their findings which were then implemented as policy. So no, not first-hand, no, but good enough for me.

Chris2048 10y ago
> he asked me to provide citations in general A reasonable standard to maintain IMHO, especially for topics that are "such loaded". Then maybe we disagree on how controversial the claim is? I don't think "the UK police has had problems with racism" is controversial (well, maybe the magnitude is, especially compared to the US), but whether this still applies generally today I think is controversial. Attempts at improving the police has gone on for quite q while, so I wouldn't assume the question "Have they been successful; Are the police different now?". > present their findings Are these findings public?
- richmarr 10y ago
  > A reasonable standard to maintain IMHO, especially for topics that are "such loaded". Loaded perhaps. Disputed? Not with significant credibility in my opinion. > but whether this still applies generally today I think is controversial. I've used the past tense throughout, and even a footnote in my comment on that exact point. Nor have I referred to racism, only to institutional racism which is a very different thing. A lot could have happened in the 7 years since the Macpherson report, but it's not "controversial" to expect evidence of change before assuming that all the problems have disappeared and everything is now completely fine. > Are these findings public? Yes. The one I mentioned was published last year. I don't want to post links relating to clients on here so will leave the googling to you if you're bothered.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > Not with significant credibility in my opinion If you believe anyone who disputed the claim would find it hard to find a credible source, fair enough, lay down that challenge. The question here is can you find a credible source for the claim yourself first? Even if there where absolutely no credible sources of dispute, the burden would still exist; Or at least, you need enough evidence to dispute. > I've used the past tense throughout Maybe I misread the thread; headmelted: "I'm a little surprised that in the article, and in the comments here, there's such a presumption of guilt on the part of the police." you (responding to this line): "There's a long catalogue of evidence that the police have been insitutionally racist (and other issues)." I interpreted "There's a long catalogue" as meaning a presumption of guilt was justified because of past issues. > A lot could have happened between "assuming that all the problems have disappeared" and "assuming nothing has changed" is "we don't know". You don't have to assume anything, but when you do (and make a claim) it's then you have a burden to justify it.

Chris2048 10y ago

> he asked me to provide citations in general A reasonable standard to maintain IMHO, especially for topics that are "such loaded". Then maybe we disagree on how controversial the claim is? I don't think "the UK police has had problems with racism" is controversial (well, maybe the magnitude is, especially compared to the US), but whether this still applies generally today I think is controversial. Attempts at improving the police has gone on for quite q while, so I wouldn't assume the question "Have they been successful; Are the police different now?". > present their findings Are these findings public?

richmarr 10y ago
> A reasonable standard to maintain IMHO, especially for topics that are "such loaded". Loaded perhaps. Disputed? Not with significant credibility in my opinion. > but whether this still applies generally today I think is controversial. I've used the past tense throughout, and even a footnote in my comment on that exact point. Nor have I referred to racism, only to institutional racism which is a very different thing. A lot could have happened in the 7 years since the Macpherson report, but it's not "controversial" to expect evidence of change before assuming that all the problems have disappeared and everything is now completely fine. > Are these findings public? Yes. The one I mentioned was published last year. I don't want to post links relating to clients on here so will leave the googling to you if you're bothered.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Not with significant credibility in my opinion If you believe anyone who disputed the claim would find it hard to find a credible source, fair enough, lay down that challenge. The question here is can you find a credible source for the claim yourself first? Even if there where absolutely no credible sources of dispute, the burden would still exist; Or at least, you need enough evidence to dispute. > I've used the past tense throughout Maybe I misread the thread; headmelted: "I'm a little surprised that in the article, and in the comments here, there's such a presumption of guilt on the part of the police." you (responding to this line): "There's a long catalogue of evidence that the police have been insitutionally racist (and other issues)." I interpreted "There's a long catalogue" as meaning a presumption of guilt was justified because of past issues. > A lot could have happened between "assuming that all the problems have disappeared" and "assuming nothing has changed" is "we don't know". You don't have to assume anything, but when you do (and make a claim) it's then you have a burden to justify it.