More Racial Profiling Accusations

[chrisjpainter]

Once again the public's left with only part of the story. The sprinter's video gets released police body cam ones (although they've been reviewed?) and not the video showing failure to stop. If they failed to stop, they should have been arrested as they'd broken the law. Same for driving on the wrong side of the road. The police could clear this up easily enough by producing the evidence. And then explain why they didn't arrest them. I gather there still needs to be reason to pull someone over. A vague 'because of youth crime in the area' hardly represents good reason. It'd be nice to know how long they'd been failing to stop. The only CCTV pictures that I've seen thus far show them being tailed, with the police vehicle more on the wrong side than they are.

Edited July 8, 2020 by chrisjpainter

[Farmboy91]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

The problem is manpower, placing a vehicle somewhere in the evening on the off chance is taking a vehicle away that would be responding to dozens of calls an evening.
They have to prioritise.

I appreciate that, but it was even more of a waste it sitting there in the daytime while nothing was going on.

[welsh1]

4 minutes ago, Farmboy91 said:

I appreciate that, but it was even more of a waste it sitting there in the daytime while nothing was going on.

So you are unhappy they put a visible presence there when they could, it seems they can't win.

[dodgy dave]

2 hours ago, discobob said:

I knew that was coming 🤣

The wife watches it and I am WFH over the period and was having my lunch break - honest guv!!

ho yea 

[AVB]

I see that Cresida **** has now apologised and visited them in person to do so. Cue the cops who made the stop being hung out to dry over this. 

[chrisjpainter]

Just now, AVB said:

I see that Cresida **** has now apologised and visited them in person to do so. Cue the cops who made the stop being hung out to dry over this. 

IF they deserve it, what's the problem? So far we've not seen or heard anything that explains their side of the story. The CCTV in the above post doesn't look great for the police. Their vehicle is further over than the sprinters' car. We've not seen them failing to stop when asked. All of this should be easily cleared up. Right now, the only evidence is Williams' video and CCTV showing a car leaving a sensible gap between it and parked cars. I assume there is evidence to support their case, given how festooned with cameras London is. I don't care what the truth is, so long as it's heard. The police reps would hammer the Met if there was any accusation of unfair treatment by senior officers on junior ranks, so there's plenty of pressure from both sides to get this right.

There seem to be a few coppers on here. Can someone tell me the procedure for what happens when the police start tailing someone? Do they radio in for vehicle checks/ownership and such? Wouldn't that give them an idea of who the driver is? Would they be able to find out that he's a Portuguese Olympic sprinter within the bounds of a realistic search?

[AVB]

12 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

IF they deserve it, what's the problem? So far we've not seen or heard anything that explains their side of the story. The CCTV in the above post doesn't look great for the police. Their vehicle is further over than the sprinters' car. We've not seen them failing to stop when asked. All of this should be easily cleared up. Right now, the only evidence is Williams' video and CCTV showing a car leaving a sensible gap between it and parked cars. I assume there is evidence to support their case, given how festooned with cameras London is. I don't care what the truth is, so long as it's heard. The police reps would hammer the Met if there was any accusation of unfair treatment by senior officers on junior ranks, so there's plenty of pressure from both sides to get this right.

There seem to be a few coppers on here. Can someone tell me the procedure for what happens when the police start tailing someone? Do they radio in for vehicle checks/ownership and such? Wouldn't that give them an idea of who the driver is? Would they be able to find out that he's a Portuguese Olympic sprinter within the bounds of a realistic search?

So what’s the sentence you propose IF it’s proven that they had no reason to stop the car other than suspecting that it looked ‘dodgy’? After all the fuss they’ll probably lose their jobs. Is that that justified? 

Edited July 8, 2020 by AVB

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, AVB said:

Which they have now done. 

Cheers, I didn't know but it doesn't suprise me.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, AVB said:

So what’s the sentence you propose IF it’s proven that they had no reason to stop the car other than suspecting that it was looked ‘dodgy’? After all the fuss they’ll probably lose their jobs. Is that that justified? 

Retraining for those involved at the very least, a written appology and a public statement of repentance. 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, AVB said:

So what’s the sentence you propose IF it’s proven that they had no reason to stop the car other than suspecting that it looked ‘dodgy’? After all the fuss they’ll probably lose their jobs. Is that that justified? 

As discussed elsewhere over the Covid random stops, the police do not need a reason to pull you over. From the Met police UK site.

If you're in a vehicle

A police officer can legally stop any vehicle at any time and ask to see driving documents, check the condition of the vehicle or deal with driving offences. This is not a stop and search and you may be given documentation relevant to road traffic matters. If the entire process ends there, this is considered a ‘vehicle stop'.

It becomes a stop and account if you or any passengers with you are asked to account for themselves.

If a police officer then searches the vehicle or persons in it, this is a stop and search.

[chrisjpainter]

2 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

As discussed elsewhere over the Covid random stops, the police do not need a reason to pull you over. From the Met police UK site.

If you're in a vehicle

A police officer can legally stop any vehicle at any time and ask to see driving documents, check the condition of the vehicle or deal with driving offences. This is not a stop and search and you may be given documentation relevant to road traffic matters. If the entire process ends there, this is considered a ‘vehicle stop'.

It becomes a stop and account if you or any passengers with you are asked to account for themselves.

If a police officer then searches the vehicle or persons in it, this is a stop and search.

They need reason for stop and search though. They searched the car, therefore it becomes a stop and search and must have prior reason. 

[Mice!]

2 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

They need reason for stop and search though. They searched the car, therefore it becomes a stop and search and must have prior reason. 

If butts and maybe's, what if the wrong side of the road wasn't on that road, but around the corner? They apparently didn't stop so the police are bound to search the car. 

I'm sure someone has said they didn't stop as it wasn't safe to do so? That car is driving past plenty of spaces?

I can't see a police radio check or the ANPR giving anything other than drivers details,  car tax etc, what him being an Olympian has to do with it I've no idea.

Its going to get to the point where the police simply won't bother pulling people over as they don't want the hassle, and who can blame them.

As for CD going and apologising?? Why?? If its being investigated then investigate it, then do what needs too be done.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

They need reason for stop and search though. They searched the car, therefore it becomes a stop and search and must have prior reason. 

You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that:

• serious violence could take place
• you’re carrying a weapon or have used one
• you’re in a specific location or area

As I understand it Maida Vale, where they were stopped is a high crime area. Once stopped the police did give a reason they said they could smell cannabis and I believe even summoned a sniffer dog. Maybe all a load of bull but the police do seem to have followed procedure.

Again maybe if the driver had stopped immediately and had stepped out of the vehicle when asked to then things wouldn't have gone as far as they did.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I can't see a police radio check or the ANPR giving anything other than drivers details,  car tax etc,

In fact it can only give the registered 'keeper' who may be neither the driver, nor the possibly the 'owner' - if it is a business car.

[GingerCat]

I strongly suspect they have a reason as the dps (professional standards) have reviewed the incident twice and said nothing was wrong. 

That department wouldn't hesitate for a second to sack the entire patrol if there was any shred of racist behaviour. They would dine out on it for months. The officers paraded in the press in a similar fashion as a big game hunter posing with his kill. The commissioner would read lengthy statements about stamping out racism and sacking the officers involved. Their families would be hounded for comments. They would no doubt be charged with misconduct in a public office or something like that, put before the courts in record time. Their social media trawled and school friends approached for stories about how so and so was always a racist wrong-un or whatever.

Boris would come along with snappy statements and the press would pat themselves on the back for a job well done. 

 

None of thats happened. It would have by now.

The met has released comment, they must be very sure about what they said. The car was seen, challenged to stop and it didn't . The area is experiencing violent gang related crimes. The occupants were detained and I presume searched. No one was arrested. They don't need to be arrested to be prosecuted, given the changes in procedures (legal) and the law a lot of stuff is dealt with at the roadside in a few minutes. Often words of advice like stop the car next time are sufficient. 

The cars windows are heavily tinted, I'd suggest you'd struggle to see who was inside the vehicle that failed to stop and you may be on your guard when you approach it given the gang violence in the area. 

The matter is with the iopc now so nothing will be released until they have finished. I too want to see the rest of the cctv and not select parts of it from one side or the press.

[Dave-G]

6 hours ago, Rim Fire said:

After looking at the phone footage i wouldn't want to get out either that one officer was looking for an excuse to use his  baton  

PNC would produce past history of that car - and possibly its occupants, so perhaps the officers were expecting grief.

All we're seeing thus far is what the complainants in the car want us to see, presumably from after they initially refused to get out - or maybe answer any questions. I'm looking forwards to seeing the bodycam footage if its eventually allowed to be shown - and past history about the occupants if that's allowed to be told which it probably isn't because the dice is stacked against the police, and some people exploit that knowledge.

When I first starting cabbing I frequently got stopped because at that time I had a lot of brattish attitude to go with the twin spots and fogs on the flash boy Granada's that weren't ideal cars for the job but pulled the birds very nicely. Each time I got lippy I got nicked for something trivial.

 

In later years I'd grown up and on odd occasions got pulled for being a bit fast, I never could just plod along. I always chatted and smiled by then and no further action got taken apart from an occasional producer. Its fair to say I took a long time to grow up and lose the chip.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Dave-G

[chrisjpainter]

31 minutes ago, Mice! said:

If butts and maybe's, what if the wrong side of the road wasn't on that road, but around the corner? They apparently didn't stop so the police are bound to search the car. 

I'm sure someone has said they didn't stop as it wasn't safe to do so? That car is driving past plenty of spaces?

I can't see a police radio check or the ANPR giving anything other than drivers details,  car tax etc, what him being an Olympian has to do with it I've no idea.

Its going to get to the point where the police simply won't bother pulling people over as they don't want the hassle, and who can blame them.

As for CD going and apologising?? Why?? If its being investigated then investigate it, then do what needs too be done.

 

Indeed, but it needs to be proven, that's all I want. They must have dash camera footage of both the failure to stop and driving on the wrong side of the road. If that's the case, then it should be easy to prove, but so far, that's not been forthcoming. Hopefully it will be and the police can be vindicated. But I still don't see why the driver wasn't arrested if they were driving on the wrong side and failing to stop.

That's what I didn't know. I didn't know if it would come up with anything more, but if it did show up anything like occupation, 'professional athlete' doesn't immediately scream 'drug dealer' - unless you're Russian, anyway! As it didn't, then they wouldn't have learned anything particularly helpful, I guess, other than the car wasn't stolen? Which doesn't really help them a great deal beyond that.

Yeah I found that a bit odd. She doesn't need to be apologising really. She can't be responsible for every single failure (if there was a failure). If there was something systemic, or some obvious failure in the training, then fair enough, but the individual behaviour of each officer is down to the individual.

27 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

I strongly suspect they have a reason as the dps (professional standards) have reviewed the incident twice and said nothing was wrong. 

 

It depends what they've been reviewing. If they've only reviewed the body cams, then all it will show is basically what's seen on Williams' video. It's distressing and high pressured, but procedurally, I don't particularly have a problem with that bit. It's the justification for it all that concerns me. If they've reviewed CCTV of them driving on the wrong side and failing to stop, then fair enough, (although I still can't see why they wouldn't have arrested the driver) but if they haven't, then there are still questions to be answered. In the initial statement Commander Helen Harper of the Met makes no mention of either CCTV or dash cam footage being reviewed, she only talks about the body cam footage and social media videoing 

Edited July 8, 2020 by chrisjpainter

[chrisjpainter]

21 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that:

• serious violence could take place
• you’re carrying a weapon or have used one
• you’re in a specific location or area

As I understand it Maida Vale, where they were stopped is a high crime area. Once stopped the police did give a reason they said they could smell cannabis and I believe even summoned a sniffer dog. Maybe all a load of bull but the police do seem to have followed procedure.

Again maybe if the driver had stopped immediately and had stepped out of the vehicle when asked to then things wouldn't have gone as far as they did.

I'm not doubting you, but where did you get that? They might have said it, but I highly doubt that it was the case - or that if they could, the smell was coming from them or the car. Two international athletes and cannabis? That's a failed drugs test, 2 year ban and a ruined reputation. Plus, the car was searched and nothing was found. 

[GingerCat]

3 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Indeed, but it needs to be proven, that's all I want. They must have dash camera footage of both the failure to stop and driving on the wrong side of the road. If that's the case, then it should be easy to prove, but so far, that's not been forthcoming. Hopefully it will be and the police can be vindicated. But I still don't see why the driver wasn't arrested if they were driving on the wrong side and failing to stop.

That's what I didn't know. I didn't know if it would come up with anything more, but if it did show up anything like occupation, 'professional athlete' doesn't immediately scream 'drug dealer' - unless you're Russian, anyway! As it didn't, then they wouldn't have learned anything particularly helpful, I guess, other than the car wasn't stolen? Which doesn't really help them a great deal beyond that.

Yeah I found that a bit odd. She doesn't need to be apologising really. She can't be responsible for every single failure (if there was a failure). If there was something systemic, or some obvious failure in the training, then fair enough, but the individual behaviour of each officer is down to the individual.

It depends what they've been reviewing. If they've only reviewed the body cams, then all it will show is basically what's seen on Williams' video. It's distressing and high pressured, but procedurally, I don't particularly have a problem with that bit. It's the justification for it all that concerns me. If they've reviewed CCTV of them driving on the wrong side and failing to stop, then fair enough, (although I still can't see why they wouldn't have arrested the driver) but if they haven't, then there are still questions to be answered. 

The dps don't mess about when it comes to investigating cops. They would have reviewed the lot, from the body cams, radio messages, pnc checks, cctv, witnesses, door to door, previous complaints about officers, interviewing officers, officers statements, pocket books, the footage from the woman, whats in the press, mobile phones of the officers, etc etc etc. Its not a nice experience.

If they can sack a cop they will, if they can't sack you for what they initially had but find something else no matter how trivial they will sack you for that if it solves the problem. They can investigate everyone for anything including murder and deaths in custody. 

What they are not is a few old sweats looking to make something go away before popping out to lunch. 

As for not arresting him, they don't have to and really there is no need to, the driver could be reported for summons later. You don't need him in custody and the justification for arrest was probably not met. you know his name and address and it can be dealt with later. 

As for stopping the car, any car on the road can be stopped at any time to check the drivers details ie licence insurance etc section 136 of the Road traffic act 1986 says so.  Suspicion of other things can be formed from their behaviour and answers (if any) and that may or may not lead to alternate outcomes. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

I'm not doubting you, but where did you get that? They might have said it, but I highly doubt that it was the case - or that if they could, the smell was coming from them or the car. Two international athletes and cannabis? That's a failed drugs test, 2 year ban and a ruined reputation. Plus, the car was searched and nothing was found. 

From Linford in his Guardian piece.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/05/met-police-deny-misconduct-after-linford-christie-athletes-stopped

He called on the Met chief, Cressida ****, “or anyone else” to justify the officers’ conduct. “Was it the car that was suspicious or the black family in it which led to such a violent confrontation and finally an accusation of the car smelling of weed but refusing to do a roadside drug test?”

It seems I nailed it with my specific location reason for stopping.

The stop took place at about 1.25pm and was executed by the Territorial Support Group, which was patrolling the area in response to an increase in violence involving weapons.

The occupants, a 25-year-old man and a 26-year-old woman, were detained for the purposes of a search under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

“The officers were deployed to a high-violence area of London and the manner of the driving raised suspicion. It is only right that they act on it.

[chrisjpainter]

11 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

The dps don't mess about when it comes to investigating cops. They would have reviewed the lot, from the body cams, radio messages, pnc checks, cctv, witnesses, door to door, previous complaints about officers, interviewing officers, officers statements, pocket books, the footage from the woman, whats in the press, mobile phones of the officers, etc etc etc. Its not a nice experience.

If they can sack a cop they will, if they can't sack you for what they initially had but find something else no matter how trivial they will sack you for that if it solves the problem. They can investigate everyone for anything including murder and deaths in custody. 

What they are not is a few old sweats looking to make something go away before popping out to lunch. 

As for not arresting him, they don't have to and really there is no need to, the driver could be reported for summons later. You don't need him in custody and the justification for arrest was probably not met. you know his name and address and it can be dealt with later. 

As for stopping the car, any car on the road can be stopped at any time to check the drivers details ie licence insurance etc section 136 of the Road traffic act 1986 says so.  Suspicion of other things can be formed from their behaviour and answers (if any) and that may or may not lead to alternate outcomes. 

Then this should be straightened out pretty quickly. I don't like the idea of CD Feeling the need to apologise simply because the couple are high profile. If there's reason to, then fine, but not simply because the media want some form of recompense. And I still don't think that, at this, relatively junior level, it should be CD's apology anyway. She's got enough to deal with without the need to apologise for every perceived misdemeanour the public puts up on youtube. If the CCTV/dash cam evidence is irrefutable, the people in the car will have some pretty awkward questions coming their way...

[Walker570]

2 hours ago, AVB said:

I see that Cresida **** has now apologised and visited them in person to do so. Cue the cops who made the stop being hung out to dry over this. 

She is a waste of space. In charge when that innocent goy got shot in the underground and got clean away to rise through the ranks, gawd knows why.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Walker570

[Mice!]

14 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Then this should be straightened out pretty quickly. I don't like the idea of CD Feeling the need to apologise simply because the couple are high profile. If there's reason to, then fine, but not simply because the media want some form of recompense. And I still don't think that, at this, relatively junior level, it should be CD's apology anyway. She's got enough to deal with without the need to apologise for every perceived misdemeanour the public puts up on youtube. If the CCTV/dash cam evidence is irrefutable, the people in the car will have some pretty awkward questions coming their way...

Its probably all about calming things down, because certain people in certain areas aren't happy.

As for why he wasn't arrested,  if you watch any of the police programs they often don't arrest people, but the behaviour or driving gets you pulled.

 

[GingerCat]

16 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Then this should be straightened out pretty quickly. I don't like the idea of CD Feeling the need to apologise simply because the couple are high profile. If there's reason to, then fine, but not simply because the media want some form of recompense. And I still don't think that, at this, relatively junior level, it should be CD's apology anyway. She's got enough to deal with without the need to apologise for every perceived misdemeanour the public puts up on youtube. If the CCTV/dash cam evidence is irrefutable, the people in the car will have some pretty awkward questions coming their way...

You'd like to think so however, the iopc are now involved and they won't release a thing until they are done and that might be a while. 

[Walker570]

3 hours ago, Rim Fire said:

I have been stopped in America and didn't get treated like that and of all place to get stopped   it was  Lass Vagoss

Exactly. I have been stopped a couple of times in the USA for minor infringements.  5mph over the limit 20 miles from habitation and 25mph in a school zone (20mph)  got fined $35 for the excess speed (traffic Officer not a proper cop) and given a polite warning for the school zone. On both occasions the officers where super polite and doing their job. I did exactly as I was told and also was sugary polite.    I also spent a day riding with an officer of the California Highway Patrol and only on one occaion when he stopped a Mexican registered truck for excess speed, did he unlock the pump action 9 shot shotgun in the rack on the dash and said, I know you know how to use that.  Serious pucker factor, but the Mexican driver was also VERY polite to that officer and accepted his ticket no problem, however my friend said his partner had been shot through the mouth by the driver of a Mexican truck only a few months before.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Walker570