Bianca Williams and the Met Police apology .

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Gone for good 08 Jul 2020

The Police stop a car that was allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road and then didn't stop when it was indicated to do so. The car eventually stops and the Police approach the vehicle. The occupants get agitated and aggressive and film the Police trying to carry out their duties. Later that day Linford Christie tweets the video footage which doesn't show much other than Police trying to remove someone from a car and a lot of shouting, mainly 'for what? by the alleged victim. I can't see any wrong doing in the video and ask myself if this is a contrived scenario that could have easily been avoided if the occupants of the car had complied with what seemed to be reasonable requests. 

The Met have referred themselves to the Police watchdog, but, why are the Metropolitan police apologising to a panel of MPs and why did they send officers to Bianca Williams's house to apologise? 

29
 wbo2 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good: I think the word allegedly for the first two statements you make may help you understand this.    They apparently didn't like the standard Mercedes tinted windows either.

4
Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to wbo2:

> I think the word allegedly for the first two statements you make may help you understand this.    They apparently didn't like the standard Mercedes tinted windows either.

I use the word allegedly as without actual video evidence its difficult to prove. Hopefully something will become available. Why you not believe the Police account?

2
Blanche DuBois 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

Notice you fail to mention that they've been stopped around 15 times, for no good reason, in the last couple of years ( racism by omission? ).

How  often have you been stopped and questioned by police whilst going about your normal day to day business in the last few years?  If it was 15 times then you might you find yourself becoming less cooperative.  Of course the figure for yourself is probably closer to zero, what with you being an over privileged white dude an all.

Apologies if that comes across as rude - well, not really...

23
 Enty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Exactly this. Was he driving erratically 15 times in the last 2 years?

The police should have proof that on this occasion they were speeding on the wrong side of the road. Police cars have dash cams and every officer in that incident has a body cam. I don't think they have proof - if they did, Cresida Dick wouldn't have apologised.

E

5
mick taylor 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I think we must be looking at different videos.  I saw zero aggression from Bianca and partner (if you think thats aggression then you really are a snowflake of the highest order).  I saw 4 police officers, one with his telescopic rod thing, primed and ready.  They tried hard to calm Bianca down, and they did look like they were attempting to hand cuff.  Hopefully will all come out in the wash, but I think I know why they were apologising - coz they f*cked up.

9
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I drive a big black merc (although without tinted windows). I'm white and 56. I've never been stopped by the police for no apparent reason. I wonder why?

4
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

both Williams and Dos Santos were handcuffed. Whilst a 3 month old baby was in the car. At which point were the police going to realise that these car occupants were not a threat to anyone? 

Mind you, cuffed or not, i wouldn't give plod much of a hope in a foot race given their backgrounds...........

3
mick taylor 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> I use the word allegedly as without actual video evidence its difficult to prove. Hopefully something will become available. Why you not believe the Police account?

No. 

And before anyone thinks I'm out to have a go at the police, you couldn't be more wrong.

6
 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Notice you fail to mention that they've been stopped around 15 times, for no good reason, in the last couple of years ( racism by omission? ).

Something doesn't add up.  There are about 1.1m blacks in London and about 170000 stop and searches a year in London.  If someone black has been stopped 15 times in two years, they are way, way, beyond average even if all the searches were of blacks, which clearly they won't be.  Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way.

15
mick taylor 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way...

...or there is racism at play.

21
 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> > Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way...

> ...or there is racism at play.

Still doesn't work - as above even if all the stops were of blacks the average would be one every 6 years, so being stopped 15 times in 2 is...odd.

Post edited at 13:09
1
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Something doesn't add up.  There are about 1.1m blacks in London and about 170000 stop and searches a year in London.  If someone black has been stopped 15 times in two years, they are way, way, beyond average even if all the searches were of blacks, which clearly they won't be.  Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way.

They drive a new (or newish at least) black merc, with tinted windows. They are young (mid 20's). How could they possibly afford such a car if they had proper jobs?

2
 summo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> I use the word allegedly as without actual video evidence its difficult to prove. Hopefully something will become available. Why you not believe the Police account?

No evidence to corroborate? If they have I expect they'd have charged him with some traffic offences and breathalised him? As it was their focus was on searching the car etc.. not the alleged driving offences. 

1
mick taylor 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

I get your point now, sounds excessive either way.

1
 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

Reading a bit more, there appear to "stop and accounts" too which increases the number but 15 is still way out of line.

Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

15 times in 2 years? That's once every 6/7 weeks. Is this a fact or some casual overstatement thrown into the mix? Nowhere is this mentioned on the BBC news report and the Mets directorate of professional standards said the force found no misconduct by its officers. 

As for your comments on my interactions with the Police,  if I had been driving on the wrong side of the road and then sped off when having been asked to stop l would have expected to have been handcuffed and taken away but that's probably my overly white privilege leading me to have some respect for the Police and general law and order. 

Post edited at 13:14
13
 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

I don’t drive a £60k Merc in an area where drug dealing is rife. 

6
 The New NickB 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

You are treating black people in London as one group, in relation to stop and search, the interaction with men between 15 and 30 is going to be significantly higher than women and older age groups. Add to this that it appears that he is driving a reasonably expensive car and also lives in a part of London where a black face is a little less common than average across the city. I also wonder if being stopped once increases your chances of being stopped again.

1
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> As for your comments on my interactions with the Police,  if I had been driving on the wrong side of the road and then sped off when having been asked to stop l would have expected to have been handcuffed and taken away but that's probably my overly white privilege leading me to have some respect for the Police and general law and order. 

if I had been driving on the wrong side of the road and then sped off when having been asked to stop l would have expected to have been talked to and charged with a motoring offence, nothing more, nothing less.

3
 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Don’t forget the number of stop and searches is not the number of people stopped and searched, if you are stopped 15times then that’s 15 of the 170,000.

The next thing to ask is are those people being targeted because they are black or because they are behaving in a certain manner. 
 

He’s a 400m sprinter. I run, and sprinters have a certain ‘attitude’. He’s driving a £60k Merc, he’s young not, as said above, 53. He's driving in a high drug crime neighbourhood. 

I have friends who are stopped regularly due to them being young and in a high powered sports car...
 

12
 The New NickB 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I don’t drive a £60k Merc in an area where drug dealing is rife. 

I can't justify spending £60k on a car, but I would say that the Coke habits of the locals are pretty irrelevant to my car choice. As I would expect to be the case for two international athletes. 

4
 BFG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

One of the fundamental principles of British law is "innocent until proven guilty"; they're not "alleged victims", they're innocent people who were stopped by the police.

It's telling that you're so fundamentally inclined to believe the justifications of the police (dangerous / careless driving) when the police have offered absolutely no evidence that this was the case (as opposed to, say, it being something the police made up to justify the stop).

This is just one of three videos I've seen from the last few weeks, the others involving a cyclist stopped for no particular reason, and a black man having his window smashed in because the police could "smell drugs", he was on his way back from a TV interview about Met police & racial profiling:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/04/police-smash-car-window-rya...

https://twitter.com/7dimii/status/1278057183167553536?

In each case the person filming states that this is part of a repeated pattern of events, where they are pulled over by police for a selection of minor infractions, for which they can produce no evidence, before being searched and eventually let go.

Either these are all cases of misunderstandings, or it points to evidence of racial profiling.

2
 BFG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I don’t drive a £60k Merc in an area where drug dealing is rife. 

Sounds a bit like victim blaming there.

4
 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Fair point.   I'm going to guess a) the police were heavy handed and probably making assumptions - it was the TSG apparently, b)  there are stopped often but not *that* often c) there weren't driving quite as calmly as they claim.

 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

Drive around London every day and you’ll get a feel for Black Range Rover Sports and Mercedes 200 series and their driving habits real quick. Suspect vanity plates too, which should attract a £1000 fine every time. 

5
 The New NickB 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> He’s a 400m sprinter. I run, and sprinters have a certain ‘attitude’.

Oh f*ck off!

4
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> 15 times in 2 years? That's once every 6/7 weeks. Is this a fact or some casual overstatement thrown into the mix? Nowhere is this mentioned on the BBC news report and the Mets directorate of professional standards said the force found no misconduct by its officers. 

Its apparently a fact - the statement put out by Linford Christie said it was the second time in 2 months. So while it may be subject to some exaggeration, its broadly true.

4
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Don’t forget the number of stop and searches is not the number of people stopped and searched, if you are stopped 15times then that’s 15 of the 170,000.

> The next thing to ask is are those people being targeted because they are black or because they are behaving in a certain manner. 

> He’s a 400m sprinter. I run, and sprinters have a certain ‘attitude’. He’s driving a £60k Merc, he’s young not, as said above, 53. He's driving in a high drug crime neighbourhood. 

> I have friends who are stopped regularly due to them being young and in a high powered sports car...

You are getting very "muddled" with some of your "facts". The number of stop and searches in london is not 170k pa, its approx 250 - 300k pa. Its shot up again recently.

I used to sprint; some sprinters have attitude, others not. i go climbing, some climbers have attitude, others not. Thats too subjective a call to make with any certainty, and without making a tit of yourself.

Do your "friends " get stopped because they are driving like tools, or because of some other reasons.......

so he's driving in a high drug crime neighbourhood? big deal. I thought the police excuse was erratic driving, not drugs?

1
 Iamgregp 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

This is a story I've told a lot recently...

I have a friend, perfectly respectable has worked for his whole life mostly for the BBC, he's never smoked, drank a drop or taken any drugs whatsoever.  He isn't involved in crime, nor does he seem to know anybody who is.

He's not a reckless driver, has never received a speeding ticket or any kind of warning in his life.  Drives a well maintained BMW.  He has been pulled over dozens and dozens of times, asked where he's going and why, handcuffed, searched, questioned....  The lot.

Each time he's been given a Likewise, if you have any questions in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me. reason as to why he was pulled over - thought he wasn't wearing his seatbelt (he was), thought the brake light wasn't working (it was).  He's in his 50's now, so this has been going on for decades.

Why on earth could this keep happening I wonder?  I've literally never been pulled over in my life, and I drive an old banger covered in scratches and dents, and have got the odd speeding penalty in my time.

Yes, you know which way this is going, my friend is black.

This is the reality of being black in the uk and this is exactly what BLM is all about.  Until this kind of blatant racial profiling stops there is no equality on the uk.

As a white person we need to recognise that our perception that "if you follow the rules of the road and drive carefully the police wouldn't pull you over" just isn't true if you are black.  Our perception comes from experience of being a white person in the uk, the experience of being a black person in the uk is totally different. 

In short, not getting pulled over when you've done nothing wrong is white privelege.

If i'd been pulled over dozens of times for no reason, I'd have reacted exactly the same as the couple in the clip.  Worse probably.

3
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Drive around London every day and you’ll get a feel for Black Range Rover Sports and Mercedes 200 series and their driving habits real quick. Suspect vanity plates too, which should attract a £1000 fine every time. 

You also get a feel for the mentality of those who make claims about drivers of certain types of car, when that type of car hasnt been sold for many many years. what do you mean by Mercedes 200 ?

You may probably have picked up on this already, but i think you are full of sh*t.

2
Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> Its apparently a fact - the statement put out by Linford Christie said it was the second time in 2 months. So while it may be subject to some exaggeration, its broadly true.

Oh come on. Is it 15 times in 2 years or twice in 2 months? Its not broadly true if its the latter but it is gross exaggeration and wilfull misrepresentation of the facts. 

2
 wintertree 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> You may probably have picked up on this already, but i think you are full of sh*t.

I'm burning to know what he thinks the "attitude" of sprinters is, especially after the long drawn business around a wife and 4 year old child on the Cummings thread [1].  For which we all still await an answer...

[1] https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/cummings_eyesight-719870?v=1#x9...

1
 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I don’t drive a £60k Merc in an area where drug dealing is rife. 

So as successful professional athletes living in a certain part of London, they deserve it?!

2
 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> You are getting very "muddled" with some of your "facts". The number of stop and searches in london is not 170k pa, its approx 250 - 300k pa. Its shot up again recently.

Where are you getting that from.  This

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-la...

GIves a figure of 375k for the whole of E+W and this a figure of 170 for London

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-la...

both up to last year, which seem to be the latest numbers.  THis suggests rates are falling

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-la...

 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

I have little interest in cars. I’ve googled for you. Try 220. 
 

Spend an hour driving round the East End, you’ll find I’m not full of shit. 

 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> Oh come on. Is it 15 times in 2 years or twice in 2 months? Its not broadly true if its the latter but it is gross exaggeration and wilfull misrepresentation of the facts. 

It could be both; the frequency of the last two times extrapolates quite well into 15 times in the last couple of years. If its 15 times in 3 (or even 4) years, or 10 times in 2 years, does that fundamentally change the narrative? 

4
In reply to MG:

> it was the TSG apparently

Is that the new name for the old Special Patrol Group...?

The 6 fold increased likelihood of being handcuffed if you're black is also rather disturbing.

Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to BFG:

> One of the fundamental principles of British law is "innocent until proven guilty"; they're not "alleged victims", they're innocent people who were stopped by the police.

What a load of rubbish. People get arrested for a reason.  Up until they go in front of a judge they're innocent but that doesn't mean the Police can't arrest and handcuff them and if necessary detain them.

> It's telling that you're so fundamentally inclined to believe the justifications of the police (dangerous / careless driving) when the police have offered absolutely no evidence that this was the case (as opposed to, say, it being something the police made up to justify the stop).

I'm sure the facts will emerge eventually and I'm not inclined to fundamentally believe the Police. I'm asking why are they apologising if they've done nothing wrong?

> This is just one of three videos I've seen from the last few weeks, the others involving a cyclist stopped for no particular reason, and a black man having his window smashed in because the police could "smell drugs", he was on his way back from a TV interview about Met police & racial profiling:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/04/police-smash-car-window-rya...

> In each case the person filming states that this is part of a repeated pattern of events, where they are pulled over by police for a selection of minor infractions, for which they can produce no evidence, before being searched and eventually let go.

> Either these are all cases of misunderstandings, or it points to evidence of racial profiling.

I get the point about racial profiling but there is no evidence in this case to support that claim so why are the Met apologising? 

Post edited at 13:55
17
 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to wintertree:

You will find sportsmen at the top of their game are highly focussed driven single minded individuals. They don’t get there without that attitude. 

6
 neilh 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

As far as I know all stop and searches are recorded in police notes, so the claim can easily be backed up or not.

If it was me being stopped by the police that many times I would keep a note of date/time etc.But that is just me.

 wintertree 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

>  I can't see any wrong doing in the video and ask myself if this is a contrived scenario that could have easily been avoided if the occupants of the car had complied with what seemed to be reasonable requests. 

I suppose the request might seem reasonable the first time round.  I can understand why people's patience wears thin at repeated stops, even if there weren't strong grounds to suspect racial profiling. 

It's notable that there are arguments both ways on the use of racial profiling, with a lot of crime within some minorities for example making an argument that not using racial profiling is racial discrimination against the victims of black-on-black crime for example.

I really don't know what the "answers" are, but not repeatedly stopping the same innocent people in the same car to the point they have a strong case for harassment has to be a positive step.  If only the police had the ability to store information pegged against vehicle registration plates, then they could add a flag for "definitely not dodgy, we already checked a half dozen times"...

1
 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

That’s a hell of a leap. 

 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

So what did you mean? That people who live in certain areas shouldn't buy certain types of cars?

2
 Cobra_Head 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

>   Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way.

Well you might be onto something there, they are BOTH black after all, that's very suspicious. Two black people in a Merc!!!!

FFS! Isn't that the whole point?

2
In reply to MG:

> Something doesn't add up.  There are about 1.1m blacks in London and about 170000 stop and searches a year in London.  If someone black has been stopped 15 times in two years, they are way, way, beyond average even if all the searches were of blacks, which clearly they won't be.  Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way.

They are suspicious because they are young, black and in a fancy car with tinted windows. 

Maybe this set of circumstances is correlated with drug dealing or maybe the cops just think it is.  In either case if you got your fancy car legitimately it is going to be a bloody nuisance.

When I bought my Merc ages ago and asked for the tinted windows the dealer specifically told us that it wasn't strictly legal to get the front passenger windows tinted glass and we could get hassled by the cops if we asked them to do that.  So we just got the rear windows tinted, been driving it for 14 years, never got stopped once.

Post edited at 14:09
1
 Cobra_Head 08 Jul 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> Oh f*ck off!


Uppity, is the word DOR is looking for I think!

2
 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> >   Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way.

> Well you might be onto something there, they are BOTH black after all, that's very suspicious. Two black people in a Merc!!!!

> FFS! Isn't that the whole point?

Well if stop and searches are focussed on young, black, tinted-window Mercedes drivers which means they are stopped over 30 times more often than blacks in general, it might be the point.

 Harry Jarvis 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> I'm sure the facts will emerge eventually and I'm not inclined to fundamentally believe the Police. I'm asking why are they apologising if they've done nothing wrong?

The police have not admitted doing anything wrong, and they have not apologised for stopping and handcuffing Williams and dos Santos. They have apologised for causing distress to Williams. This apology seems fair - being handcuffed (and probably uncertain what else might happen) when your baby is still strapped in the car must be an upsetting experience for someone who has done nothing wrong apart from protest their innocence.

Of course, it may be that someone in the police with a modicum of awareness might have realised that sticking rigidly to their previous line that there were no grounds for considerations of misconduct might not be the wisest course of action at the moment, when all aspects of interactions between young black people and the police are under scrutiny, and that there might be something to be gained from taking a less confrontational approach. 

 i_alan_i 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Something doesn't add up.  There are about 1.1m blacks in London and about 170000 stop and searches a year in London.  If someone black has been stopped 15 times in two years, they are way, way, beyond average even if all the searches were of blacks, which clearly they won't be.  Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way.

Almost certainly car stops won't be counted as stop and search.  Police have powers to stop cars and check documentation, and so have no need to use their stop and search powers to do that.   

I bet there are at least 10 times as many car stops as stop and searches.  Who's interested enough to do an FOI request? 

1
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I have little interest in cars. I’ve googled for you. Try 220. 

> Spend an hour driving round the East End, you’ll find I’m not full of shit. 

but enough interest to profile the drivers of two types of car............

FWIW, i think from a car geeky pov, they are in either a GLA or a C class estate. Neither of which are particularly outlandish cars, and generally rather sensible and solid, and not £60k unless the very, very top of the range; which their car does not look to be.

1
 Iamgregp 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Is it just me that cringes every he refers to black people as “blacks”?

3
 Niall_H 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> so why are the Met apologising? 

As mentioned above, it's very likely that there's dash-cam footage.  If that - when reviewed - did not show reckless driving, but the officer in charge stated that at the time they had believed it was reckless driving, then you'd get the situation where the Met don't find any fault with the officer's behaviour (it's what they believed at the time) but still feel a need to apologise (as, on review, nothing illegal was seen to be occuring).

Or, as Mick Taylor pithily put it: they f*cked up

 Niall_H 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Not just you!

 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to i_alan_i:

Interesting.

 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

I haven’t got a clue what type of car they drive. The press said it was a £60k black Mercedes. The two cars I see predominantly racing on the North Circular every day are Mercedes with letters and a 2xx on the back and Range Rover Sports. That’s about as close to identifying cars as I get. Maybe you’ll get VW golf or BMW 1 series out of me if pushed. I really don’t pay much attention other to the cars that tailgate of aggressively undertake and switch lanes continually for the next 5 miles getting nowhere. 
 

I have been pulled over by the police and asked to get out of the car. Which I did and was then informed they stopped me because of my number plate and explained I risked a £1000 fine because they couldn’t identify me using ANPR. I cleaned the mud off and took the slap on the wrist and carried on my way. 
 

Now. I totally get racial profiling and I totally understand why they may have been pulled over, but if you’re getting pulled over many many times (by his admission since buying that car), unless all their friends are getting pulled over too with the same frequency In different cars, then it’s the car. 

5
 Timmd 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Something doesn't add up.  There are about 1.1m blacks in London and about 170000 stop and searches a year in London.  If someone black has been stopped 15 times in two years, they are way, way, beyond average even if all the searches were of blacks, which clearly they won't be.  Either the 15 is nonsense or they are seriously suspicious in some way.

Being black and male and in a nice Mercedes can be reason enough in the eyes of some police, seriously.

Post edited at 14:43
1
 MG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Is it just me that cringes every he refers to black people as “blacks”?

Why?

 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Where are you getting that from. 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sharp-increase-in-stop-and-search-as-arr...

dont think its firewalled; basically says stop and search levels reached 30k per month in april / may.

 Iamgregp 08 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Personally, I think It's a really dated term which harks back to the days of colonialism.  It reduces people to nothing but a skin colour.  

It's not a term I would use, and I would feel embarrassed if any of my black friends were to learn that people use that around me unchallenged.

Here's a short video from a news org which explains the further problems with using these terms  youtube.com/watch?v=QQ0hCEDH-aU&

It wouldn't cost you anything but a few more keystrokes to refer to black people rather than the term "blacks".  

I don't think you meant any malice in using the term, and I'm certainly not saying you're racist or anything of that sort, but I am of the opinion that if you do mean to cause no offence, you ought not to use that term.  

6
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> He’s a 400m sprinter. I run, and sprinters have a certain ‘attitude’.

Oh f*ck off!

You a sprinter, by any chance?   

 The New NickB 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> Oh f*ck off!

> You a sprinter, by any chance?   

No, never raced anything shorter than a mile. Just sick of DoR's homespun "wisdom".

 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I haven’t got a clue what type of car they drive. The press said it was a £60k black Mercedes. The two cars I see predominantly racing on the North Circular every day are Mercedes with letters and a 2xx on the back and Range Rover Sports. That’s about as close to identifying cars as I get. Maybe you’ll get VW golf or BMW 1 series out of me if pushed. I really don’t pay much attention other to the cars that tailgate of aggressively undertake and switch lanes continually for the next 5 miles getting nowhere. 

fair enough - but you didnt say letters!! Mercs are basically letters then some numbers, which used to reference the engine size, but dont anymore. Could well have been GLA200 or C220. We'll put the £60k tag down to lazy journalists - who genuinely cares what it costs? I'd have been in dead trouble - I do drive a £57k (when it was new) merc, for which i paid £14k "pre loved".

> I have been pulled over by the police and asked to get out of the car. Which I did and was then informed they stopped me because of my number plate and explained I risked a £1000 fine because they couldn’t identify me using ANPR. I cleaned the mud off and took the slap on the wrist and carried on my way. 

> Now. I totally get racial profiling and I totally understand why they may have been pulled over, but if you’re getting pulled over many many times (by his admission since buying that car), unless all their friends are getting pulled over too with the same frequency In different cars, then it’s the car. 

So why, in my (very nearly) £60k merc, do i never get stopped, even though i also drive through areas where drug dealing is known to take place - not as much, i grant you, as i live up north in the land of the A-road based opthalmic examination, but its still there.....or is ot the combination of car and driver, rather than just the car......

Post edited at 15:12
1
 David Riley 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

When I was 16 I had a big motorbike and looked about 12.  So I was very often stopped by the police.  One time I went to the police station with 3 "produce documents" demands and would have had more but for "I've already got one of those".   Did I deserve it for having the bike when I looked so young ?  Was I discriminated against for my looks and age ?    Had I been black would I have thought it racist ?

 BFG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

It doesn't really matter what attitude sprinters have; attitude is not an arrestable offence.

If it was, and easily detectable whilst driving, Cummings better watch out the next time he tests his eyesight

2
 GrahamD 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Being black and male and in a nice Mercedes can be reason enough in the eyes of some police, seriously.

This is quite possibly true, but if the car has tinted windows,  could the police have told what colour the occupants were ?

Something very odd about the whole story. 

1
 Harry Jarvis 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> fair enough - but you didnt say letters!! Mercs are basically letters then some numbers, which used to reference the engine size, but dont anymore. Could well have been GLA200 or C220. We'll put the £60k tag down to lazy journalists -

To be fair to anyone deserving of such, the £60k came from Bianca Williams:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/53305712

 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to David Riley:

Bloody hell, David, how old are you?? (If that isnt a rude question), or did you regard 250cc as big back then!

 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

yeah, it has just got exaggerated / chinese whispered - she says it came from the police, but theres no way they would all ask that............not all of them would have a clue what it cost.

 BFG 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I can't really decide where to begin unpicking the circular logic in this. The problem with a statement as catch all as "people get arrested for a reason" is implies the police can do no wrong and is the kind of attitude demonstrated by the police along a continuum of dodgy behaviour; from stopping black men for no obvious reason through to the Birmingham Six. The behaviour demonstrated across those three videos can only really be justified if you start from a position of presuming the police are right; but that is neither how the law works on paper (that's the fundamental reason we have the CPS, judges and juries and why the police are tasked with investigating both sides of a case) nor is it supported by the evidence.

Flip side, enforcing the law obviously involves breaking it. Every arrest is an assault. The police's job is high stress and requires making decisions under pressure, humans are fundamentally fallible and the police have a right to be protected where they make reasonable decisions and it goes wrong.

However, there is nothing reasonable about following a family home and handcuffing the parents (there is no evidence of careless driving, they were released and no offence recorded, therefore they are innocent). There is nothing reasonable about criminal damage, detention and impounding someone's car because you can "smell drugs" (the Guardian link).

And fundamentally, there is nothing reasonable about the pattern of targetted behaviour from the police that means black people have a fundamentally different experience of the police to whites.

That's literally the definition of institutional racism.

5
 Ian W 08 Jul 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

only the rear windows. windscreen and front door windows clear.

 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I think it has been pointed out that where narrow roads are only wide enough for one car, anyone driving down them is on the “wrong” side.  But they chose to stop a car with two black people in it, and hand cuff them, for really no reason at all.

The issue for me is that the met has been (Rightly) forced into an apology, which they initially resisted, because the people in question turned out to be successful athletes with a famous and influential coach.    What about all the other people they stop unjustifiably?

2
 elsewhere 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I can guess how I would feel if I were on the receiving end of being targeted.

"One in eight young black males in London stopped by police in May."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/jul/08/one-in-10-of-londons-young-blac...

"there were 4 stop and searches for every 1,000 White people, compared with 38 for every 1,000 Black people"

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-la...

1
 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

Why you not believe the Police account?

Why do you believe it?  And anyway, the police account in itself is a load of old bollocks.  No crime had been committed other than a vague after the event suggestion if bring on the wrong side of the road.  There’s no real correlation between being on the wrong side of the road and having drugs/stolen goods/whatever in the car.  It’s racial profiling.

5
 steveriley 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I was once sat in my friend's (nice) car chatting away, outside a garage waiting to pick my own up from a service. Police car pulls up. 'On your way sir'. Long chat to other guy out of my earshot. I'll let you guess our respective skin colours. And it's not the one with the more chequered past.

baron 08 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> I can guess how I would feel if I were on the receiving end of being targeted.

> "One in eight young black males in London stopped by police in May."

> "there were 4 stop and searches for every 1,000 White people, compared with 38 for every 1,000 Black people"

You forgot to mention this bit of the Guardian article - 72% of homicide victims under 25 were black, and that black people were four times more likely to be a victim of homicide and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator.

Maybe it has some bearing on why some people are stopped more than others.

3
Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> Why you not believe the Police account?

> Why do you believe it?  And anyway, the police account in itself is a load of old bollocks.  No crime had been committed other than a vague after the event suggestion if bring on the wrong side of the road.  There’s no real correlation between being on the wrong side of the road and having drugs/stolen goods/whatever in the car.  It’s racial profiling.

I didnt say I did believe it. I'll keep an open mind on the events until some actual facts emerge. My question is why did the Chief of the Metropolitan police apologise to MPs and why did she send Officers to apologise personally to Bianca Williams when, so far at least, there is no evidence of any wrong doing. 

1
 abr1966 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I suspect there there are other facts that the police cannot share due to confidentiality etc....

Who else remembers the 'Sus rules' in the 80's when the police could pull you over and search you if the 'suspected' you of anything dodgy?!

I must ha e been pulled about 20 times between the ages of 14 and 16.....its just the way it was where I grew up.

Lets see what comes out in the wash with this one....if there evidence fair enough but I'm always suspicious of edited video clips shared on social media....

 Blunderbuss 08 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> I can guess how I would feel if I were on the receiving end of being targeted.

> "One in eight young black males in London stopped by police in May."

> "there were 4 stop and searches for every 1,000 White people, compared with 38 for every 1,000 Black people"

The questions that need to be asked before assuming this is is 'racist' are:

1. What crimes are being targetted by stop and search?

2. What is the profile of those committing the majority of this crime?

Post edited at 15:47
 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

I would like to know if that’s actually 10,000 individual people stopped. 
 

Where I live ‘1000 children went missing’ in one year. This was actually mainly down to a group of girls who were in care absconding every night, sometimes to be picked up by the police, returned, only to abscond less than an hour later. Every time they absconded, the care system has to report them as a missing child.

If this guy has been stopped 15 times (is that one a year or 3 years?) and if, for arguments sake, that’s typical, that’s less than 1000 people being stopped. And if he has then the police investigation will show up how many times that car has been stopped.


Statistics are often very misleading. 

We know that black people are being targeted but I think we need to have a proper discussion about it.

 elsewhere 08 Jul 2020
In reply to baron:

> You forgot to mention this bit of the Guardian article - 72% of homicide victims under 25 were black, and that black people were four times more likely to be a victim of homicide and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator.

And if I were stopped by the police, why would I be thinking about criminals rather than me?

2
 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to BFG:

Attitude is very easily detected from driving. Very very easily. Tailgating, speeding and aggressive undertaking. You need a certain attitude to drive like that. 

3
 elsewhere 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> The questions that need to be asked before assuming this is is 'racist' are:

> 1. What crimes are being targetted by stop and search?

> 2. What is the profile of those committing the majority of this crime?

3. What impression of the police does it give to those on the receiving end?

 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

>fair enough - but you didnt say letters!!

 

My apologies. As I say I have no interest. If a car has 2xx on it I assume it’s some kind of 200 series. 

 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> I didnt say I did believe it. I'll keep an open mind on the events until some actual facts emerge. My question is why did the Chief of the Metropolitan police apologise to MPs and why did she send Officers to apologise personally to Bianca Williams when, so far at least, there is no evidence of any wrong doing. 

Damage limitation? PR?

 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

Of course it’s racial profiling and /or youth profiling.

Young man in a £60k Merc. He’s been stopped several times. It’s not very PC but it’s highly likely he’s either a celebrity, a footballer or a criminal. That’s because of the problem of black people being underrepresented in well paid professions. 

I’d be very interested what other 20 something (black or white) people drive a car like that. 

7
 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Do you not consider this attitude, particularly if held by the police, to be problematic? 

Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> Damage limitation? PR?

Ah! An empty apology to give succour to the aggrieved alleged victim of a Police action that didn't break any rules or do anything wrong. Great Police work!! 

1
baron 08 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> And if I were stopped by the police, why would I be thinking about criminals rather than me?

You might be thinking ‘Why have they stopped me?’

If you were black then maybe it’s  because the police would like to prevent some black person from being murdered by another black person?

1
 Timmd 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:You omitted the police talking about the smell of weed coming from their car. The smell of weed (had it existed) could have been rather hard to smell before they stopped it, unless the weed had been strong enough to smell from the car in going through the air vents of the police car(s), in which case it would have simply billowed out when they opened the doors, leaving no uncertainty about what was going on.  Keep in mind that in being Olympic athletes this is two of the least likely people to be smoking weed, from a health and performance point of view, and due to needing to take drugs tests. As well as it being poor parenting to have a 4 month old child in the car to inhale the smoke passively had there been any weed being smoked.

I think that this at least has (quite likely) been a lie put out by the police involved. 

Post edited at 16:31
1
 The New NickB 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> Ah! An empty apology to give succour to the aggrieved alleged victim of a Police action that didn't break any rules or do anything wrong. Great Police work!! 

You don't know that the Police action didn't break any rules or do anything wrong. I suspect neither does Cressida Dick at the moment. Your continued insistence that the Police did nothing wrong, despite no evidence to support that they did nothing and the fact that the Met themselves have referred the matter to the IPCC, suggests less than a balances approach from yourself.

4
Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

My position is based on the Mets directorate of professional standards saying the force found no misconduct by its officers. Nothing unbalanced about my posting and my question was why the need to apologise? 

As I said in an earlier post, I'll keep an open mind on the actual events until some creditable evidence emerges but I can't get my head around the apologising when apparently nothing untoward has happened. 

2
 3 Names 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Timmd:

The smell of weed routine. that right there is all you need, to see the stop was unjustified.

I live in Camden, drive a sporty BMW and I am white. Guess how many times ive been stopped?

2
 DancingOnRock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

Not at all. Look at the video from last week of the illegal ‘block party’. 
 

The problem is the way that the stops are carried out. 
 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/living-on-the-edge-the-real-reasons-...

Post edited at 17:21
 Mr Lopez 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> You omitted the police talking about the smell of weed coming from their car.

That's standard police modus operandi when they want to search you because they feel like it and not having reasonable excuse.

The way it works round my neighbourhodd is they will take up as much of the pavement as they can, when you reach them and try to go around one of them will step sideways and block your path. When moving the other way he will again step in front of you, typical film bully move. After repeating that a few times he'll get right in your face, and when you say something like 'can i just walk past' he will say, 'i can smell weed on you and so have reasonable suspicion you may be carrying some, so blah blah blah we will search you.'.

They pull that one because it's impossible for you to prove they didn't smell weed, so they always get away with it.

After harassing you and search you for ages they then try to send you on your way without recording it as well, which is why the official number for S&S never reflects the reality. I like at that point to get them back and ask them for a copy of the paperwork, as then they will have to spend 10 miutes filling paperwork so they can give you a copy, and then they will have to report it.

Happened to me a few times, and though i look like a scruffy prick at the best of times i have't smoked weed in over a decade, so the 'accusation' of smelling weed is alway amusisng.

2
 Blunderbuss 08 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> 3. What impression of the police does it give to those on the receiving end?

Can you answer my questions first please.... 

 Blunderbuss 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Sounds like you need to dress a bit sharper.... 

7
 Timmd 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss: Why should be? How about punks, and goths, and alternatively dressed near do wells?

'Beware beware, the breaking of social norms of conventional dress...'

(just feeling flippant)

Post edited at 17:49
 philipivan 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I know lots of people black, Asian and white with reasonably nice Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, BMWs etc. Anecdotally i can't remember any of them mentioning they've been stopped and searched.

Despite travelling through and living in dodgy bits of east London, Nottingham and Sunderland I've only ever been pulled over once about 15 years ago. It was just after I'd had a long trip to Canada where it was pitch dark at night and I'd forgotten to put my lights on. They asked where I'd been and I said I'd had a pint at the pub. They asked where I was going and I said I was having a drive around as I was jet lagged and couldn't sleep. They checked my address against where the car was registered and wished me a good evening. Something seems a bit strange about this story. 

1
 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> Ah! An empty apology to give succour to the aggrieved alleged victim of a Police action that didn't break any rules or do anything wrong. Great Police work!! 

I was thinking more along the lines of a public and orchestrated apology, in the vain hope that neither Williams nor dos Santos pursue the matter any further and the whole smell of weed/wrong side of the road/no misconduct nonsense isn’t exposed any further.

2
 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to baron:

> You might be thinking ‘Why have they stopped me?’

> If you were black then maybe it’s  because the police would like to prevent some black person from being murdered by another black person?

Ah, so they should have been grateful that they were stopped and handcuffed for no reason, because it was for their own protection. 

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> I was thinking more along the lines of a public and orchestrated apology, in the vain hope that neither Williams nor dos Santos pursue the matter any further and the whole smell of weed/wrong side of the road/no misconduct nonsense isn’t exposed any further.

Here's the Met statement on what occurred.

http://news.met.police.uk/news/updated-statement-on-vehicle-stop-in-maida-v...

Personally I think it would certainly be interesting to get any body worn footage and video out in public.

I don't think I've ever seen such a clear, early and stark denial of fault in an incident by the Met.

Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Thanks for sharing that information. 

I'd be interested in hearing what people think the Police should have done assuming the following extract is accurate. 

Officers witnessed a vehicle that was being driven in a manner that raised suspicion, heavily braking and accelerating which included driving on the wrong side of the road. They indicated for it to stop but it failed to do so and accelerated off. The officers caught up with the vehicle when it stopped on Lanhill Road. The driver initially refused to get out of the car.

The occupants, a 25-year-old man and a 26-year-old woman, were informed that they were being detained for the purposes of a search under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They were both handcuffed due to the officers’ views, which took into account the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, that the vehicle was attempting to evade police, and due to the driver refusing to leave his vehicle

Post edited at 18:43
 Iamgregp 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

Left them the f*ck alone, like they would have done if they were white.

i mean really, you believe this shit? Erratic driving, with their infant child in the car?  

12
 Timmd 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

'raises hand' In the interests of fairness and balance, the erratic driving has been denied (like the smell of weed has*).

* It's been asked why blood tests weren't requested if weed could be smelled.

Post edited at 18:51
2
 Albert Tatlock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Dear off duty

I suspect the the officers body worn recording device and in car recording ? will have been viewed by the Met senior officers and the IOPC to release such a statement.

That police will not disclosed those recordings to the  media due to potential future civil legal proceedings.That allows an unfair bias to this incident. 

Its a bit like Sir Robert Mark ( one of the better Met Commissioner’s ) said that we win by appearing to lose.

Evening  all 

1
 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> I think we must be looking at different videos.  I saw zero aggression from Bianca and partner (if you think thats aggression then you really are a snowflake of the highest order).  I saw 4 police officers, one with his telescopic rod thing, primed and ready.  They tried hard to calm Bianca down, and they did look like they were attempting to hand cuff.  Hopefully will all come out in the wash, but I think I know why they were apologising - coz they f*cked up.

Which video have you seen?  The one released by most media outlets appears to start about 50 seconds into the unedited video. 

There's a link to the full video, unfortunately with a lot of subtitles in yellow.

https://twitter.com/NormanBrennan/status/1280216824911736832?s=09

 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to BFG:

The car driver is asked to get out of the car and refuses repeatedly, so the cops have to break his window to get him out.  What he did I don’t know, the video is cut and doesn’t show.

The cyclist is breaking the law, he’s cycling on the pavement.  You can see that in his video.  The cop says he’s weaving on and off the road, no denial so I’ll assume that’s true too, also illegal.  Instead of saying sorry and moving on he’s a complete dick about it.

That’s evidence of racial profiling to you?  Think you might just be seeing what you want to see.

Post edited at 19:13
 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Left them the f*ck alone, like they would have done if they were white.

Really? Interesting view.

> i mean really, you believe this shit? Erratic driving, with their infant child in the car?  

Yep. Shocking. 

1
Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Left them the f*ck alone, like they would have done if they were white.

> i mean really, you believe this shit? Erratic driving, with their infant child in the car?  

The world's full of idiots. Refusing to stop, refusing to get out of the car.  I would have thought if they were concerned about the infant they would have stopped when asked and would have left the vehicle quietly and without causing a scene. The drivers initial refusal to do either no doubt would have distressed the child. Instead they chose to be loud, difficult and awkward. Sometimes you get what you deserve.

5
 Blunderbuss 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Left them the f*ck alone, like they would have done if they were white.

> i mean really, you believe this shit? Erratic driving, with their infant child in the car?  

Yes mate, people never drive like knobheads with children in their cars... 

 THE.WALRUS 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

It'll be very interesting to see what comes out of the investigation.

If the met can produce video footage showing erratic driving and aggression on the part of William's...the 'assumption of racism'  aimed at the officers by William's, numerous celebrity backers, and various posters on this thread; will be blown out of the water. 

Given the speed at which the Met denied any wrong doing and cleared their officers, I suspect they are in possession of compelling evidence which puts them in the clear.

Time will tell.

5
 THE.WALRUS 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Smells more like bollocks than weed, to me! 

baron 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> Ah, so they should have been grateful that they were stopped and handcuffed for no reason, because it was for their own protection. 

Is that what I said?

If black people are being murdered mostly by other black people who do you think the police should be stopping?

If the police were truly racist would they not just stop searching any black people?

That way they don’t get accused of racism and possibly more black people get stabbed , so a win win for the racist police.

3
 wintertree 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

What I can’t understand about the Met’s statement....  If they were driving as described how could they possibly be allowed to continue with a 3 month old in the back?  Surely it’s dangerous driving and some sort of endangerment of the child and they should have been done for that and not stop and searched.

Given the lack of action, they can’t actually have been driving dangerously, so it makes me wonder if it has been somewhat overplayed and was really just a handy McGuffin.  The last time I drove, I drove on the wrong side of the road.  Gasp. The context for this - I was passing a parked vehicle slowly with a good view of the road ahead.  No context in that statement actually saying it was dangerous.

Perhaps I’m missing something and shouldn’t be so cynical reading that statement.  One side or the other is going to come out of this looking like a right tit I suspect; as you say it’ll be interesting to see the camera footage.

Post edited at 20:01
3
 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I reckon you can see both from the video off duty posted.  Shame they’ve apologised, makes it look like they did something wrong.

 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to wintertree:

They see the cops (who’ve turned their lights on), turn a corner and drive fast to another corner.  That looks like trying to get away, it’s not particularly dangerous though.

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> What I can’t understand about the Met’s statement....  If they were driving as described how could they possibly be allowed to continue with a 3 month old in the back?  Surely it’s dangerous driving and some sort of endangerment of the child and they should have been done for that and not stop and searched.

"Surely" it's dangerous driving? No -"maybe" or "possibly".

Certainly I haven't seen it described as "dangerous" in the police statements.

"They should have been done for that" - or more correctly - "maybe they could..."

There seems to be a number of posters who are keen for any sort of discretion, advice or any other leeway to be removed and are suggesting that the police should prosecute everyone for everything, at all times.

> Given the lack of action, they can’t actually have been driving dangerously, so it makes me wonder if it has been somewhat overplayed and was really just a handy McGuffin.  The last time I drove, I drove on the wrong side of the road.  Gasp. The context for this - I was passing a parked vehicle slowly with a good view of the road ahead.  No context in that statement actually saying it was dangerous.

As you so clearly point out - context is everything. Had your driving been perhaps a reaction to seeing the police, or had your "passing a parked car slowly" been maybe "hitting the gas as hard as you could to squeeze in a tight gap" - then maybe your driving could have been described as dangerous. Not that the word dangerous was used here.

And as regards "they can't actually have been driving dangerously" - I refer you to my comments re using the word "dangerous" and regarding the use of discretion and the reason the cops were in the area. Which wasn't traffic enforcement.

> Perhaps I’m missing something and shouldn’t be so cynical reading that statement.  Someone is going to come out of this looking like a tit I suspect; as you say it’ll be interesting to see the camera footage.

I'd imagine someone is. Though I suspect this will never come out in any further legal action.

It's interesting to see how your cynicism appears to extend to the police statement and seemingly no further.

 Mr Lopez 08 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Smells more like bollocks than weed, to me! 

Try having a shower once in a while and wash that forgotten spot between your legs and you my get rid of that smell

3
 wintertree 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

>It's interesting to see how your cynicism appears to extend to the police statement and seemingly no further.

I've got cynicism for both sides.  I was just responding to the statement you linked.  You appear to have jumped to an assumption on my position based on an absence of comment in my post.   Which is odd. I recognised my cynicism up front, said I could be missing something (or over-reading something I suppose), and that one side or the other is going to come out of this looking like a tit - without picking a side.

> Certainly I haven't seen it described as "dangerous" in the police statements.

Indeed - it carefully doesn't call it "dangerous" whilst hi lighting aspects of the driving that seem intended to give that impression to the reader.   Given that they also claim the driver was apparently trying to evade them, then letting them go without the statement even saying "advice was given"  just doesn't square right.  Perhaps the Met are a much softer touch that my local northern constabulary, I'm pretty sure I know what would happen to me if I did some traffic light racing followed by appearing to evade a police car and then effing and blinding at them with an infant in the back.  It wouldn't be pootling on my merry way five minutes later.

> There seems to be a number of posters who are keen for any sort of discretion, advice or any other leeway to be removed and are suggesting that the police should prosecute everyone for everything, at all times.

I am not suggesting that, just that the statement doesn't ring true to me.  Can you genuinely speed away from a police car with blue lights on, swear at the police some and then just drive after a chit chat?   

> And as regards "they can't actually have been driving dangerously" - I refer you to my comments re using the word "dangerous" and regarding the use of discretion and the reason the cops were in the area. Which wasn't traffic enforcement.

I'd naively assumed the TSG are well enough trained to be able to determine dangerous driving when they see it, and that if there was nothing potentially dangerous about the driving it wouldn't be reason enough to pull a car over.

2
 THE.WALRUS 08 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

Yeah, the referral to the IPCC is often misinterpreted as an admission of wrong doing, rather than a means of having police activity impartially investigate.

The link does seem to sink any allegations of improper behaviour by the police. But, to quote Mark Twain 'no amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot'...and the Tweeting hords do appear to be race-obsessed, anti-police idiots.

Footage which supports the police assertions of reckless driving and tinted windows would certainly be useful to counter the (standard) allegation that they only stopped the car because the occupants were black.

Interesting point raised above; given the vast over-representation of black-on-black murder in crime stats, if the Met really are a bunch of racist monsters, why are they searching black people for weapons?

Surley, a true racist would just leave them to kill each other? 

4
 Hat Dude 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> Why you not believe the Police account?

Possibly because they've got previous

3
 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> >It's interesting to see how your cynicism appears to extend to the police statement and seemingly no further.

> I've got cynicism for both sides.  I was just responding to the statement you linked.  You appear to have jumped to an assumption on my position based on an absence of comment in my post.   Which is odd. I recognised my cynicism up front, said I could be missing something (or over-reading something I suppose), and that one side or the other is going to come out of this looking like a tit - without picking a side.

Fair enough. I certainly haven't seen your cynicism directed at the other parties account though.

I agree, one side or the other is likely to come out badly, but I suspect this matter won't go any further and will just be filed, to be brought up every time someone wants an example to fling at the police.

> > Certainly I haven't seen it described as "dangerous" in the police statements.

> Indeed - it carefully doesn't call it "dangerous" whilst hi lighting aspects of the driving that seem intended to give that impression to the reader.   Given that they also claim the driver was apparently trying to evade them, then letting them go without the statement even saying "advice was given"  just doesn't square right.  Perhaps the Met are a much softer touch that my local northern constabulary, I'm pretty sure I know what would happen to me if I did some traffic light racing followed by appearing to evade a police car and then effing and blinding at them with an infant in the back.  It wouldn't be pootling on my merry way five minutes later.

You'd be surprised regarding what's tolerated, often dependent on whether you are pulled by a traffic cop or a normal response cop. I didn't think they jumped any lights either.

> > There seems to be a number of posters who are keen for any sort of discretion, advice or any other leeway to be removed and are suggesting that the police should prosecute everyone for everything, at all times.

> I am not suggesting that, just that the statement doesn't ring true to me.  Can you genuinely speed away from a police car with blue lights on, swear at the police some and then just drive after a chit chat?  

Yep. I've dealt with people like that repeatedly. It's a massive pain in the ass to try and get a prosecution for careless driving without in car footage, it's also a lot of extra work. If someone makes off from me I want to find out why. If it is because they are an idiot, I'd usually have words. Most times it's because they are wanted, disqualified, driving a stolen car, in possession of weapons, it carrying drugs.

> > And as regards "they can't actually have been driving dangerously" - I refer you to my comments re using the word "dangerous" and regarding the use of discretion and the reason the cops were in the area. Which wasn't traffic enforcement.

> I'd naively assumed the TSG are well enough trained to be able to determine dangerous driving when they see it, and that if there was nothing potentially dangerous about the driving it wouldn't be reason enough to pull a car over.

They didn't pull the car because it was committing the offence of dangerous driving. They were suspicious of the car because it was being driven in an erratic and apparently evasive manner.

 wintertree 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Fair enough. I certainly haven't seen your cynicism directed at the other parties account though.

That's because it wasn't.  It was just that the statement caught my interest.

> You'd be surprised regarding what's tolerated, often dependent on whether you are pulled by a traffic cop or a normal response cop. I didn't think they jumped any lights either.

I just meant accelerating away from the green and breaking in to the next red rather than jumping lights.

> Yep. I've dealt with people like that repeatedly. It's a massive pain in the ass to try and get a prosecution for careless driving without in car footage, it's also a lot of extra work. If someone makes off from me I want to find out why. If it is because they are an idiot, I'd usually have words. Most times it's because they are wanted, disqualified, driving a stolen car, in possession of weapons, it carrying drugs.

> They didn't pull the car because it was committing the offence of dangerous driving. They were suspicious of the car because it was being driven in an erratic and apparently evasive manner.

I understand that - I'm just surprised that a car can be driven erratically enough to give cause for such a stop without also falling under dangerous driving or at least under "without due care and attention" - almost by logical definition if someone is driving with sufficient care and attention, there driving is not in itself reason to be suspicious and to stop them.  Likewise either they were being evasive or they were driving with insufficient care and attention to spot the police car with lights flashing behind them, which is again reason for at least advice.

Perhaps I'm over thinking it...  Or perhaps once the officers realise the people they'd stopped were famous and black they decided it wasn't worth the grief.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

3
 THE.WALRUS 08 Jul 2020
In reply to wintertree:

>  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

I suspect if you were to ask the officers concerned, they'd use this phrase! 

 Blunderbuss 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Hat Dude:

> Possibly because they've got previous

So have the 'general public'... Unless you believe no one ever lies to cover their own arse. 

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I just meant accelerating away from the green and breaking in to the next red rather than jumping lights.

Probably just words of advice for that. It's not dangerous, verging on careless but certainly "interesting..."

> I understand that - I'm just surprised that a car can be driven erratically enough to give cause for such a stop without also falling under dangerous driving or at least under "without due care and attention" - almost by logical definition if someone is driving with sufficient care and attention, there driving is not in itself reason to be suspicious and to stop them.  Likewise either they were being evasive or they were driving with insufficient care and attention to spot the police car with lights flashing behind them, which is again reason for at least advice.

Quite possibly the driving may have fallen in to the category of careless or maybe even dangerous. As I said previously, if the cops were traffic cops then the traffic offence might be something that would have been pursued. Given that they were TSG not even response, then the chance of a traffic ticket are minimal. Adding in the fact they were on patrol looking at violent crime, and bearing in mind what I previously said - the main interest is "why are you driving like that" because the usual response is that it is because there is something you want to hide - your identity or what you are carrying - then when it has been established your details are all in order and you haven't got anything on you, then let's get on with looking for the people we are there to target, rather than waste more time dealing with people who are clearly just wasting our time.

> Perhaps I'm over thinking it...  Or perhaps once the officers realise the people they'd stopped were famous and black they decided it wasn't worth the grief.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

I'm not clear that the cops realised they, or at least "she" was famous. I've never heard of her. As in my previous paragraph. They are there to prevent violent crime, not waste more time with time-wasters.

1
 Yanis Nayu 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

It’s difficult. The inconvenient truth, as far as I can see it, is that in certain inner-city areas black (males) are the ones doing the stabbing and shooting. If I was the parent of a black child I can’t help thinking them being disproportionately stopped was worth it if it reduced violent crime and helped to keep them safe. That said, you’d expect it to be done politely.  

 THE.WALRUS 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Gave them a good scrub...but the smell comes back every time I read your anecdotal, uncorroborated, anti-police waffle. Very odd!

I'll lather them up again tomorrow, see if it improves matters. 

 Albert Tatlock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Mr Walrus

Carbollock soap may help.

 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> They didn't pull the car because it was committing the offence of dangerous driving. They were suspicious of the car because it was being driven in an erratic and apparently evasive manner.

Is that why they searched it for weapons as the officers said whilst pulling them out of the car? Being a crap driver doesn't seem grounds to suspect someone is carrying a weapon, while I suppose them being evasive might be. But was it erratic or evasive?

3
 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> They are there to prevent violent crime, not waste more time with time-wasters.

That seems rather harsh a judgement after the police stopping them and pulling the mum with a little baby out of the car! Do you think Ms Williams started the day thinking "let's go and drive past the police to see if we can get them to stop us, pull their batons out, shout at us and generally waste their time"?

edit: on the car thing - is anyone else old enough a hip hop fan to remember Derek B? To be honest I wasn't really into him back when he had some hits, but it was quite sad when I was googling earlier trying to find out about the TV programme I half remembered, to read that he had died over a decade ago aged just 44. Anyway, the TV programme turns out to be an episode of World in Action that aired in 1988 called "No Porsche for Derek B", about him having to sell the porsche he loved because he was continually stopped in it by the police who presumed it was stolen. 32 years ago and pre-Lawrence/MacPherson.

Post edited at 22:23
4
 Albert Tatlock 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> But was it erratic or evasive?

Perhaps both ? 

 abr1966 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

Very lame report on bbc news just now....

baron 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> That seems rather harsh a judgement after the police stopping them and pulling the mum with a little baby out of the car! Do you think Ms Williams started the day thinking "let's go and drive past the police to see if we can get them to stop us, pull their batons out, shout at us and generally waste their time"?

For a highly trained athlete she was awfully slow getting her arse out of the car.

Her tongue seemed like be working quickly enough though.

6
 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Somewhat in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Which I guess is why among certain communities there is still distrust of the police and other authorities.

1
 Siward 08 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Yep, Mr Lopez certainly has the blinkers on, constantly. Yawn. 

 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to baron:

> For a highly trained athlete she was awfully slow getting her arse out of the car.

Perhaps she felt they had no justification to tell her to and she was safeguarding her child's welfare?

3
baron 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Perhaps she felt they had no justification to tell her to and she was safeguarding her child's welfare?

Yes, of course she was.

1
 FactorXXX 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

>  But was it erratic or evasive?

It was being driven erratically and evasively which made it suspicious.
That's the way the Police work.  Through years of experience, they recognise patterns of behaviour which tells them something isn't quite right and needs further investigating.
In this case, it appears their suspicions were reinforced by the fact that the driver undertook further evasive actions and the Police acted correspondingly.
What do you honestly expect the Police to do in such circumstances?


 

2
Gone for good 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Perhaps she felt they had no justification to tell her to and she was safeguarding her child's welfare?

Do you really believe that? An alternative view could be perhaps she's just got a big ego and didn't think she should be treated like the general public would be in similar circumstances. 

2
 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to baron:

In the spirit of your brief but always argumentative responses:

Well that's your opinion isn't it. I take it you're not black?

3
 FactorXXX 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Well that's your opinion isn't it. I take it you're not black?

Are you?

2
 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

From what?  The kid was (presumably, it’s the law) strapped into a car seat in a parked car.

 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> Do you really believe that? An alternative view could be perhaps she's just got a big ego and didn't think she should be treated like the general public would be in similar circumstances. 

It might also be that she thinks, with some justification, that only certain sectors of the general public would be treated in the way that they were.

2
baron 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> In the spirit of your brief but always argumentative responses:

> Well that's your opinion isn't it. I take it you're not black?

I tend to do what I’m asked/ordered to by the police, especially when they’re armed with big sticks/truncheons/batons or whatever they’re called.

I’m not always argumentative but this is an Internet forum, not just any Internet forum but UKC.

 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

>  and didn't think she should be treated like the general public would be in similar circumstances. 

But it's not the general public is it? Because all us white blokes have never been, or very rarely been pulled over by the police. I've definitely not had them pull their batons out (on a traffic stop - I was stopped walking on the street once when they had batons in hand) and yelled at to get out of our cars climbing over the child-seats with our infants in them.

Look, we know what your opinion is on this. It doesn't seem that you're willing or perhaps capable of considering it from another persons perspective. So what are trying to prove beyond Williams should know her place and stop winding up the cops? Perhaps the lesson they should learn is to buy a less flash car?

3
 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

No, which is why I think it's worth listening to the experiences of people who are. They experience the world differently from me.

3
 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> From what?  The kid was (presumably, it’s the law) strapped into a car seat in a parked car.

From all the people with weapons threatening to smash the windows in, maybe? 

3
 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

What do you imagine the cops would do to her kid?

2
 Mr Lopez 08 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Gave them a good scrub...but the smell comes back every time I read your anecdotal, uncorroborated, anti-police waffle. Very odd!

> I'll lather them up again tomorrow, see if it improves matters.

You probably got it wrong in which case you should ask an adult to point you where they are.

3
baron 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> >  and didn't think she should be treated like the general public would be in similar circumstances. 

> Perhaps the lesson they should learn is to buy a less flash car?

I had a goretex coat stolen from me by a pupil in the school where I used to work.

I knew who did it, I told the police.

Their advice to me, having taken no action against the thief, was not to wear such a good coat to school. Easy advice to follow as I no longer had a good coat to wear.

Never quite had the same belief in the police after that incident.

Post edited at 22:58
 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

I got pulled over on a narrow road just like that one.  Cops were behind me and turned their lights on, I slowed down and followed directions.  I got out of the car when asked.  What would you do?

 abr1966 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Perhaps she felt they had no justification to tell her to and she was safeguarding her child's welfare?

Actually she could have just cooperated and got out of the car!

1
 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

In the twitter link that off duty posted above, the officer seems to be trying to remove the kid in the seat from car. It's the sort of thing that might upset many people a bit.

3
 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

> What do you imagine the cops would do to her kid?

I don’t think they’d do anything.  But if 4 or 5 weaponised police officers were dragging me and my boyfriend out of my car, I can see that I might reasonably, if not totally rationally, have some concern for the child’s safety.  I think the kid is 3 months old.  One of the stills of the video footage shows a police officer holding your a window smasher (or whatever they call them).  That would bother me.

Post edited at 23:09
2
baron 08 Jul 2020

In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Why you not believe the Police account?

> Because the Met have a long history of telling blatant lies when found out to have f*cked up.

Don’t they wear cameras these days to record their misdemeanours?

 TobyA 08 Jul 2020
In reply to abr1966:

Again perhaps she felt they had no justification in asking her to. Maybe she's wrong legally, but if I knew I hadn't done anything wrong and the police were trying to pull me, or my kids - because I think that's what the female officers says in the video she is doing - out of the car, I'm not sure I would be particularly calm. Have you ever been stopped, taken out of your car and put in handcuffs whilst your kids are in the car?! I know I most certainly haven't. It would be an utterly bizarre thing to happen in most of our lives. I think it's really easy to say "they should have done this or that" when it doesn't happen to us.

I've never really thought about it before but I guess I have a couple of knives in my car, one on an old cheap multi-tool in the glove compartment which is mainly there because occasionally the pliers are useful, and then a workman's knife from Finland in with various tools, gloves and wooly hat and stuff with the spare wheel. That could absolutely be used as a weapon. I've never really thought about before that if the police were stop me and search the car like they did in that case, would that be an offence?

2
 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

So how is she safeguarding her child?  In the still she’s in the front seat, the kid is in the back.  The bit where she shouts about her kid, when she gets in the car with him, is much later.

If I refused to stop for the cops when asked, then when I did stop argued with them about opening my window/getting out I’d expect them to try to get in.  I might be bothered by it but I don’t think I’d be justified.  What would you expect?

It bothered me when the cops (riot van! Football was on) pulled up on me cause I’d parked badly (screaming baby) I apologised and explained and they said ok.  If I shouted at them I’d have had a different response.

 abr1966 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

I've not been.pulled out of a car but I have been on the other side of this scenario and taken people out of them on many occasions.

If the police have suspicion, rightly or wrongly and you don't comply its only going to end one way....they will never step back and decide not to carry on because someone doesn't believe they should.

I.appreciate it's not nice....especially if you have done nothing wrong so why not just cooperate. I mentioned earlier in the thread that as a youth I was pulled up and searched a lot by the police.....most of them were fine, just the odd ones who were heavy handed but we all knew not to resist as it inly ever ends one way....

1
 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Not that I could see.  I rewatched and she does shout something about her son, but I can’t see anyone touch him and I’ve not heard her accuse them of taking him.  If they were what would you think they would do that is a threat to the kid?

 gazhbo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to thomasadixon:

She’s in the back with the kid throughout, isn’t she?  Anyway I’m not sure that’s really the point.  I still wouldn’t want someone to smash the front windows of my car if my baby was in the back.  She starts ‘shouting’ about her kid at the exact moment the police pile into the car and, as TobyA points out try and take him/the seat out of the car, which seems appropriate to me.

3
gezebo 08 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t in my view. 
 

Young people in a very expensive car being driven erratically. Initially made off but then stopped and then occupants then challenging. Plenty of drug dealers use babies and children to hide drugs. I’d fully expect the police to conduct a drugs search in this situation and personally I’d never heard of either of these athletes before and why should they get special treatment. Tbh I found their attitude quite poor and not one I would expect professional athletes to display or demonstrate to others  

Drive sensibly and if stopped be civil and everything is much easier for everyone.

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to baron:

> Don’t they wear cameras these days to record their misdemeanours?

Something like that...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/29/police-with-body-cameras-re...

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> That seems rather harsh a judgement after the police stopping them and pulling the mum with a little baby out of the car! Do you think Ms Williams started the day thinking "let's go and drive past the police to see if we can get them to stop us, pull their batons out, shout at us and generally waste their time"?

I've no idea. She wasn't driving.

I've noticed the driver, whose behaviour was apparently the reason the car was stopped hasn't been very vocal.

> edit: on the car thing - is anyone else old enough a hip hop fan to remember Derek B? To be honest I wasn't really into him back when he had some hits, but it was quite sad when I was googling earlier trying to find out about the TV programme I half remembered, to read that he had died over a decade ago aged just 44. Anyway, the TV programme turns out to be an episode of World in Action that aired in 1988 called "No Porsche for Derek B", about him having to sell the porsche he loved because he was continually stopped in it by the police who presumed it was stolen. 32 years ago and pre-Lawrence/MacPherson.

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> >  and didn't think she should be treated like the general public would be in similar circumstances. 

> But it's not the general public is it? Because all us white blokes have never been, or very rarely been pulled over by the police. I've definitely not had them pull their batons out (on a traffic stop - I was stopped walking on the street once when they had batons in hand) and yelled at to get out of our cars climbing over the child-seats with our infants in them.

I've pulled considerably more white blokes than black out of cars.  Their videos don't get the same high profile publicity though. 

> Look, we know what your opinion is on this. It doesn't seem that you're willing or perhaps capable of considering it from another persons perspective. So what are trying to prove beyond Williams should know her place and stop winding up the cops? Perhaps the lesson they should learn is to buy a less flash car?

Or perhaps drive it in a less "flash" manner?

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> It might also be that she thinks, with some justification, that only certain sectors of the general public would be treated in the way that they were.

I'd wholly agree with her there. Those who drive off from police attempts to stop them tend to be treated in a fairly similar way.

 Yanis Nayu 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

When I was a young (white) male I got pulled over loads of times driving a shit car. 

 off-duty 08 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Is that why they searched it for weapons as the officers said whilst pulling them out of the car? Being a crap driver doesn't seem grounds to suspect someone is carrying a weapon, while I suppose them being evasive might be. But was it erratic or evasive?

You could read the Met statement I suppose.

But for clarity, the reason the officers were deployed in that area was due to a rise in violence using weapons. 

They see a car which appears to either be already driving erratically, or which starts to drive erratically in seeing them. It then fails to stop for them - which would suggest that the erratic driving was evasive behaviour to a lesser or greater degree.

As I've repeatedly said - the question then arises."Why are the occupants of this car apparently not keen to be stopped by the police.....?" 

Which results in a stop for a weapons search...

 thomasadixon 08 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

Sorry, you’re right.  The still is from his video, not hers.  She’s in the backseat.  She gets out, starts shouting and the cops come over, she then gets back in and shouts about her kid.  They don’t pile into the car, they pull her out (saying quite calmly that they’re detaining them for making off).

I wouldn’t want my windows smashed in, of course.  So I wouldn’t refuse to get out/open them when asked.

 Bacon Butty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Another 'weed' pull ... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/04/police-smash-car-window-rya...

The Met are scum of the Earth.

Apologies just do not cut it.

9
 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

> The Met are scum of the Earth.

> Apologies just do not cut it.

I'm sure Gill Hicks would agree with you.

1
 thomasadixon 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

Man who is arguing police treat black people differently for no reason refuses to get out of car when asked because the cops won’t promise not to handcuff him.  Eventually he gets his window smashed in, and then claims that’s more evidence black people are treated differently for no reason.  Why would this stuff keep happening to him?

It’ll be interesting to see the report on why they pulled him over.

1
 Jim Fraser 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Still doesn't work - as above even if all the stops were of blacks the average would be one every 6 years, so being stopped 15 times in 2 is...odd.

Not odd at all. If you drive a car once owned by a person of interest, coincidentally fit the algorithm through some innocent behaviour pattern, then you can get stopped again and again and again. And the less similar you look to a middle-aged overweight copper the more likely it is to happen (includes attractive young white women: I wonder why). 

1
 deepsoup 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I've pulled considerably more white blokes than black out of cars.

Have you ever done the same white bloke fifteen times?

1
 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Have you ever done the same white bloke fifteen times?

Not sure about fifteen times, but repeatedly, yes.

 ianjenkins 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

Both you and MG have quoted articles about stop and searches.

In MG's case one of the articles he quoted (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-la...) clearly states "between April 2018 and March 2019, there were 375,588 stop and searches in England and Wales (excluding vehicle searches)"

And the article you quotes (and unfortunately without subscribing to the time I can't read it all) implies stop and searches on the street.

This is a comment about the articles both of you chose rather than a comment either way as to who is right or wrong.

Gone for good 09 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> >  and didn't think she should be treated like the general public would be in similar circumstances. 

> But it's not the general public is it? Because all us white blokes have never been, or very rarely been pulled over by the police. I've definitely not had them pull their batons out (on a traffic stop - I was stopped walking on the street once when they had batons in hand) and yelled at to get out of our cars climbing over the child-seats with our infants in them.

> Look, we know what your opinion is on this. It doesn't seem that you're willing or perhaps capable of considering it from another persons perspective. So what are trying to prove beyond Williams should know her place and stop winding up the cops? Perhaps the lesson they should learn is to buy a less flash car?

What a load of old tosh. For your information I've got nothing against Bianca Williams in general but this smacks of a contrived racial harassment situation that could easily been avoided if the occupants of the car had followed simple, clear and reasonable instructions. I have absolutely no sympathy for them and on this occasion I'm on the side of the law which is not a position I always take. 

Its easy to see what your position is. Defend the minority group at all costs and attack the establishment even if they have acted with propriety. Its seems to be all the vogue these days. 

6
 elsewhere 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

Being stopped multiple times without justification is not reasonable. It's a waste of time and money.

After x stops, hopefully less than fifteen, they should notice this car has nothing to do with crime and this looks more like harassment of an innocent family. Hopefully the met apology means that information is now noted along with the registration number.

1
In reply to baron:

> Don’t they wear cameras these days to record their misdemeanours?

Some do, yes. But the Met also have history for finding CCTV video tapes to be 'mysteriously' blank.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/aug/23/politics.brazil

1
 TobyA 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

But the Commissioner still has apologised for the distress the stop caused. So she seems to have more sympathy for Williams than you do. Should black people just accept that they are going to get stopped by the police more and have to accept that part of their life is being handcuffed while their cars get searched?

1
 ianjenkins 09 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

So you're using one article, on tapes that the Met have no control over (the CCTV was in the tube station) as a basis for your argument that and I quote you "But the Met also have history for finding CCTV video tapes to be 'mysteriously' blank."

Certainly see where you got you nom de plume.

2
 Rob Exile Ward 09 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

'this looks more like harassment of an innocent family'

Why would they be doing that? What could possibly be their motive for doing so?

 DancingOnRock 09 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

It very much depends on how the majority of young black people in expensive cars behave when they have their cars searched. 
 

Unfortunately it becomes a circular problem. If the majority run away because they’re carrying drugs then the police will start behaving as if everyone will run away.

Somewhere the cycle has to be broken and I don’t think stopping young black people in expensive cars is where it should be broken.  It’s far more complicated. This is just a symptom of a much bigger problem and by treating the symptom you don’t eliminate the cause. Which is deprivation in inner cities and a high prevalence of drug/gang culture among young black people  

1
 elsewhere 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'this looks more like harassment of an innocent family'

> Why would they be doing that? What could possibly be their motive for doing so?

Good question. Perhaps the Met can answer as I can't think of a good reason for repeatedly pulling over the same innocent family without learning "this is an innocent family, this is a waste of police time, this is a waste of money".

Post edited at 09:44
1
 Ian W 09 Jul 2020
In reply to ianjenkins:

> Both you and MG have quoted articles about stop and searches.

> In MG's case one of the articles he quoted (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-la...) clearly states "between April 2018 and March 2019, there were 375,588 stop and searches in England and Wales (excluding vehicle searches)"

> And the article you quotes (and unfortunately without subscribing to the time I can't read it all) implies stop and searches on the street.

> This is a comment about the articles both of you chose rather than a comment either way as to who is right or wrong.

to clarify; both articles are (I believe) talking about the same thing - there was a link to the times article higher up this thread , which claimed that the level of stop and search had increased this year quite dramatically - MG queried the numbers i claimed and produced a link to a different article showing figs for 2018 - 19. I'm not sisputing MG's numbers at all, just adding an article that backs up the claim that S&S incidents have risen significantly (20 - 30%) in the recent past, after falling off for a few years. everything in the article stacks up with the numbers available.

 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Being stopped multiple times without justification is not reasonable. It's a waste of time and money.

Where have you seen that the stops were without justification?

> After x stops, hopefully less than fifteen, they should notice this car has nothing to do with crime and this looks more like harassment of an innocent family. Hopefully the met apology means that information is now noted along with the registration number.

Were they all stops in the same car? I hadn't realised this stop was based on checking the vehicle details, realising it was "an innocent family" and then deciding to stop it as part of a targeted campaign of harassment - where have you seen that reported?  

What intelligence would you like added to the vehicle - "this car was owned by X in June 2020. Despite the fact it drove erratically and it took some time for us to stop it, and the driver and passenger where non-compliant, we didn't find anything.  Please don't stop it again, regardless of its manner of driving as they might still own it it..."

2
In reply to ianjenkins:

> So you're using one article, on tapes that the Met have no control over (the CCTV was in the tube station)

No, I'm just posting one article to illustrate how the Met handled a very high profile f*ck up by lying and questionable evidential handling. The suggestion from LUL is that the tapes were fine when provided to the Met, but mysteriously became blank whilst in their care 

If you're not aware of it, this was widely reported at the time. It's why I was able to remember it, and find it with a single, simple Google search. I could have posted a huge raft of similar reports.

1
 Ridge 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> What intelligence would you like added to the vehicle - "this car was owned by X in June 2020. Despite the fact it drove erratically and it took some time for us to stop it, and the driver and passenger where non-compliant, we didn't find anything.  Please don't stop it again, regardless of its manner of driving as they might still own it.”

That was my thoughts on the matter. If vehicles have “These are innocent people do not under any account stop them” flags on them they are also going to be very, very sought after vehicles by local gangs. Getting stopped by the Met might end up being the least of the owners problems.

1
mick taylor 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

That video is better than the one I saw.  Still seems totally over the top - that policeman with the rod looks well wired, what an aggressive wee prick !!  I hope if I ever get stopped I get treated better.  I can now hear the drivers aggressive shouting, not excusing it but understandable given the heavy handed way the police dealt with them.

1
 elsewhere 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Where have you seen that the stops were without justification?

Nowhere. Have you seen reports that the multiple stops were justified by crimes detected?

> Were they all stops in the same car? I hadn't realised this stop was based on checking the vehicle details, realising it was "an innocent family" and then deciding to stop it as part of a targeted campaign of harassment - where have you seen that reported?  

Nowhere. I referred to the appearance given by multiple fruitless stops of the same innocent family.

> What intelligence would you like added to the vehicle - "this car was owned by X in June 2020. Despite the fact it drove erratically and it took some time for us to stop it, and the driver and passenger where non-compliant, we didn't find anything.  Please don't stop it again, regardless of its manner of driving as they might still own it it..."

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

6
 THE.WALRUS 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> Its easy to see what your position is. Defend the minority group at all costs and attack the establishment even if they have acted with propriety. Its seems to be all the vogue these days. 

Yes, well put. And, you never have to look far for the support of an online flash-mob or weak willed celebrity.

It's no wonder people of BAME backgrounds feel like they're being discriminated against...they are being persuaded that this is the case, even when it isn't.

No different to online grooming.

8
 Cobra_Head 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

> Well if stop and searches are focussed on young, black, tinted-window Mercedes drivers which means they are stopped over 30 times more often than blacks in general, it might be the point.

Out of your original 1.1m how many have cars? How many have expensive cars? Working an average out based on population only, doesn't make any sense at all.

Further, estimating they've been stopped more the 30 times the average, doesn't hold water either

2
 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Nowhere. Have you seen reports that the multiple stops were justified by crimes detected?

No. However I am aware of the grounds required to conduct a stop search under PACE. Which incidentally doesn't include thatd a crime must be detected as "justification" for doing it. 

> Nowhere. I referred to the appearance given by multiple fruitless stops of the same innocent family.

"The same family"? Or the same car? Or the driver alone? Or the passenger alone? 

> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I'm not clear what action you expect when a car appears to evade police. But if it's "insane" to repeatedly stop it, then I guess that's what'll happen. Though hopefully it will get escalated to a section 59 warning about anti social driving or a driving offence of some sort.

1
 DancingOnRock 09 Jul 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

>The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

But if they’re stopping young black people in expensive cars and finding drugs and weapons, that’s the result they’re after isn’t it? They’re trying to protect young black people from each other. This seems to be what everyone seems to be missing and classing as racism. 
 

When I was 17 Vauxhall Astras were the car that was most often being stolen, it was also the most usual car for young white boys to go tearing around in. I was stopped twice for no apparent reason, my brother was stopped frequently for driving like an idiot. The police cannot prosecute you for ‘driving like an idiot’, you actually have to be doing something illegal that would stand up to prosecution. 
 

It’s all dependent on how the police and the person stopped behave. And it may well be that young black people in expensive cars are feeling victimised, but there is a reason for the stops. 

Post edited at 10:43
2
 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

We went through that in the lower posts.  It does seem possible that a very narrow demographic are stopped vastly more than the general population, or even the general black population.

 ianjenkins 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Ian W:

And I agree with that, my comment was more to point out that originally the posts were about car stops rather than stop and searches in general.

Like I said it was more a comment about the articles you both chose rather than to say who was right or wrong. But thanks for coming back.

 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to ianjenkins:

Mine wasn't an article but government statistics. It does seem in April/May this year there was a spike in searches.

 Mr Lopez 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

Fake news. The former bent officer upthread says that never happens, and for some reason people relaying their experiences of it happening causes uncontrolled profuse sweating in his bollocks.

The video must be a fake recorded by anti-police woke neo-marxists in the same studios they filmed the moon landings, the police records planted by critical-theory activist moles, and the smell of weed wafting from car to car being there while not being there just a practical use of the Schrödinger's spliff developed with shapeshifting lizard technologies.

> The Met are scum of the Earth.

Bit extreme. There's all sorts in the Met as there's all sorts working everywhere and it tends to be the ones behaving the worst are the ones getting the most publicity and notoriety. A video of a calm and polite officer being friendly and reasonable would not get many views on twitter or make the news

That said, both this Williams s&s and at least the first one from your link of which i just watched the video were the TSG rather than 'The Met'. A unit which has a gruelling and demanding selection process to make sure only the most suitable and apt can join, in the form of a multiple choice questionnaire in which you have to score a perfect 100% to be accepted. The full questionnaire is below:

1) Are you a certified piece of shit?

A- Yes

B - No

The correct answer is 'A'

They been trying to clean up the unit for many years now and gone through a number of rebrandings and the lot, but it seems crooked coppers aren't very succesful with genital hygiene for some reason and plenty slip the net. Must be true the saying that you can smell a bent copper from a mile off

.

6
 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> Really? Interesting view.

Not that interesting.  Quite widely held.

mick taylor 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

>  I have absolutely no sympathy for them and on this occasion I'm on the side of the law which is not a position I always take. 

It must really get on your nerves though when you keep getting stopped when you've not broken the law.  I know loads of people from BME communities who regularly get stopped and nothing has come of it - loads.

Out of interest, why do you think the police apologised?

1
 THE.WALRUS 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> You probably got it wrong in which case you should ask an adult to point you where they are.

Thanks for the advice. I got the local vicar to identify them for me, while I was in the confessional, and I've given them another good scrub.

I'm abit worried that I've spent so much time washing my testicles that I'm marginalising the other parts of my body. 

Will speak up for my sweaty feet if this turns out to be discriminatory?

1
 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I think whatever happens with the investigation into this incident the fact remains that peoples experience of policing varies depending on their race (I refer you back to my first post on this thread) and that the family here's previous experience of policing is a contributing factor in what took place here.

2
Gone for good 09 Jul 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> It must really get on your nerves though when you keep getting stopped when you've not broken the law.  I know loads of people from BME communities who regularly get stopped and nothing has come of it - loads.

> Out of interest, why do you think the police apologised?

Political correctness. Its a bad habit the Police have gotten into when they apologise for being in the right and carrying out their duties in line with the standards. Its one of the reasons my Brother in law quit as he was disillusioned with the appeasement policy of the force.

3
 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Not that interesting.  Quite widely held.

You're quite right, not "interesting", more "misguided".

 THE.WALRUS 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Undoubtedly, this is correct.

But, as off duty has pointed out on other threads, it's far too simplistic to say that this variable treatment is because they're black per se, despite the current trend to label all police activity involving BAME member of the public as racist...regardless of what actually happened.

In this case, the prevalence of black-on-black murders seems to have been a significant factor...the police were searching for weapons.

The effect of social-media preconditioning and (generally) baseless on-line criticism of the police, which persuades BAME people that they're being picked-on even when they're not is also a factor.

Of course, the police could just play it safe and take no action against black-on-black crime, and avoid this kind of social media storm. But then, the same old voices would pipe-up to accuse them of racism! 

Post edited at 12:35
2
 DancingOnRock 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Of course there was. Everyone was supposed to be at home or at work. 

 Mr Lopez 09 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> I'm abit worried that I've spent so much time washing my testicles that I'm marginalising the other parts of my body. 

> Will speak up for my sweaty feet if this turns out to be discriminatory?

Good question. I'd say it's probably positive discrimination to make up for all the years of neglect, and so culd be deemed to be politically correct

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Well you have your views and I have mine.  I'm an unbiased member of the public with no involvement in police matters and you... well... aren't.   It comes as no surprise that our view differ.

And that's part of the problem, the Police are quick to leap to the defence of their colleagues and to close ranks and cover for them.  (I'm not saying that some bad officers aren't held accountable, but this is only when there's been a clear breach and they're made an example of). 

I think the met, and all individual officers need to take a good hard look at themselves and ask themselves some hard questions, and take responsibility for their actions. 

Post edited at 13:24
6
 Tyler 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> on this occasion I'm on the side of the law which is not a position I always take.

I think that may be the issue. 

1
 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Nobody is trying to claim that black people are always innocent of all crimes, or that black people shouldn't be prosecuted because of their race

We just want black people to be treated the same as white people, not differently one way or the other.

1
 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

>   I'm an unbiased member of the public

A rather bold statement.

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Well I have my perceptions, and opinions obviously, but I don't have a dog in the hunt, so to speak.  

1
 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Well I have my perceptions, and opinions obviously, but I don't have a dog in the hunt, so to speak.  

Really?  You have no interest in the law, policing, society etc?  The fact is you are just as biased as anyone else and pretending otherwise is self-delusion.

 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Well you have your views and I have mine.  I'm an unbiased member of the public with no involvement in police matters and you... well... aren't.   It comes as no surprise that our view differ.

I'll let others judge the level of bias expressed by either of us. I'll be interested to see how this matter (ETA - the stop of Bianca Williams) is resolved.

As I have previously said, I am bringing my daily professional.experience of doing the job to the table, hopefully with some specialist knowledge in an effort to provide context to a matter being discussed, often with bizarre interpretations of powers, policy and procedures. As you say, you aren't.

> And that's part of the problem, the Police are quick to leap to the defence of their colleagues and to close ranks and cover for them.  (I'm not saying that some bad officers aren't held accountable, but this is only when there's been a clear breach and they're made an example of). 

It's interesting that you see my posts as defending officers. 

> I think the met, and all individual officers need to take a good hard look at themselves and ask themselves some hard questions, and take responsibility for their actions. 

Thanks for your thoughts.

Post edited at 13:42
 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Nobody is trying to claim that black people are always innocent of all crimes, or that black people shouldn't be prosecuted because of their race

> We just want black people to be treated the same as white people, not differently one way or the other.

Regarding this specific incident, what evidence is there that the couple in the car were treated differently due to their race?

1
 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Of course I do. Having an opinion or perception is not the same as professional bias.


 

3
 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

This is of course impossible prove or disprove, we have no insight into what was going through officers minds when they undertook the action.

Thats why we have to look at stats accross the whole force to see if there is any discrepancy between races. And there is. Hugely. More than could be explained by chance. 

That’s why I said officers and the force need to ask themselves the hard questions as only they can know what their own thoughts are

10
 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Of course I do. Having an opinion or perception is not the same as professional bias.

Err right.  So when you said "I am an unbiased member of the public" what you actually meant was "I am a biased member of public"  Got it.

Also interesting you are now introducing "professional" into your claims about off-duty.  Are you now suggesting all police are biased as a result of their job?  A bit like some people think all blacks are inclined to criminality due to the colour of their skin - that sort of thing?

Post edited at 14:17
1
 Blunderbuss 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Well you have your views and I have mine.  I'm an unbiased member of the public with no involvement in police matters and you... well... aren't.   It comes as no surprise that our view differ.

> And that's part of the problem, the Police are quick to leap to the defence of their colleagues and to close ranks and cover for them.  (I'm not saying that some bad officers aren't held accountable, but this is only when there's been a clear breach and they're made an example of). 

> I think the met, and all individual officers need to take a good hard look at themselves and ask themselves some hard questions, and take responsibility for their actions. 

Unbiased? lol!

You suggested earlier that anyone with a kid in their car would not drive like a knobhead ergo the coppers in the case must stopped them for no reason at all....

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Why would I be biased one way or the other though?  Any bias I have has only come from my own lived experience.  My livelihood does not depend on these matters.

Yes, I am saying that police are biased as a result of their job, they are far more likely to be pro police than anti, and are far more likely to defend their actions.  I said something similar in an earlier post.  

If you like to learn more about why I think this I'd suggest you start with Conformity & Deviation (Berg & Bass 1961) which will give you a broad background into conformity, then including the classic Asch studies.  There are then a number of papers on professional bias if you want to look into this more specifically.

Lastly, if you use the term "blacks" to me in a post again then, with respect, I shall not continue this debate with you.  I don't feel comfortable with this term, and don't want to be associated with a debate where it is used.  You have every right to go on using it as much as you please, freedom of speech and all that, but those same freedoms allow me to remove myself, freedom of assembly and association and all that.

Post edited at 15:02
6
 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

You're confusing bias and opinion.

2
 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> You're confusing bias and opinion.

You seem to have a terribly high opinion of yourself on all matters.

Your little threat run off (oh, no!!) if I dare use the term blacks reminds me of this

youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0&

2
 Yanis Nayu 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

What’s the difference between ‘experience’ and ‘lived experience’?

 THE.WALRUS 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

But it can be proven. The windows were tinted, so the police were undigested on the ethnicity of the occupants. 

The allegation of racism is getting weaker by the minute.

3
Removed User 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I think I'm right in saying that there is no evidence publicly available that the car was driving erratically?

If so, it's quite possible that the police made it up after the event as an excuse for stopping the vehicle for no good reason other than young black people were in a flashy car.

If that is the case and the driver denies erratic driving, then I can understand why they were pissed off and decided to film the incident. They seemed to have got the result they desired as I doubt they'll get pulled over again without a good reason.

1
mick taylor 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

Re: the term ‘blacks’.  It’s the language I associate with racists, which I don’t think you are, using this phrase can weaken your arguments. 
Edit: it’s the language I associate with segregation and apartheid etc 

Post edited at 16:08
1
 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> I think I'm right in saying that there is no evidence publicly available that the car was driving erratically?

There are two videos of the incident. I've linked to one earlier. There is no publicly released evidence of the driving of the car, being specifically erratic. I'm not sure how clear the driving is from the backseat video.

> If so, it's quite possible that the police made it up after the event as an excuse for stopping the vehicle for no good reason other than young black people were in a flashy car.

It is possible, yes. 

> If that is the case and the driver denies erratic driving, then I can understand why they were pissed off and decided to film the incident. They seemed to have got the result they desired as I doubt they'll get pulled over again without a good reason.

I don't believe the driver has given his account. I think Bianca Williams was the backseat passenger.

I agree, they are unlikely to get pulled again. 

Without a good reason.

Gone for good 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> What’s the difference between ‘experience’ and ‘lived experience’?

Maybe this is the difference?

A "lived experience" is just an anecdote that you are trying to make sound more authoritative.

 Harry Jarvis 09 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> But it can be proven. The windows were tinted, so the police were undigested on the ethnicity of the occupants. 

Were all the windows tinted, or as is not uncommon, just the rear windows?

And 'undigested on the ethnicity'? 

1
mick taylor 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> And 'undigested on the ethnicity'? 

I thought that, so before I made a joke about a typo I double checked and it’s actually good English. 

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

That's nonsense, I've just watched the video back,  they're nowhere near a dark enough tint to obscure the ethnicity of the occupants

4
 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

> Re: the term ‘blacks’.  It’s the language I associate with racists, which I don’t think you are, using this phrase can weaken your arguments. 

> Edit: it’s the language I associate with segregation and apartheid etc 

It all gets a bit tiresome when allowable terms change so frequently and minute alterations somehow make a difference between entirely acceptable and beyond the pale..  "Black" and "white" are widely used on ethnic monitoring forms so objecting to "blacks" or "whites" but finding "black people" OK seems arbitrary to me.  I am sure they are widely used by racists too but I'm certainly not intending any pejorative meaning.   

To be honest though, I was just trolling lamgregp for his pompous superiority in the last posts.

Post edited at 16:21
2
mick taylor 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

> I don't believe the driver has given his account. I think Bianca Williams was the backseat passenger.

Saw them both interviewed on TV and IIRC correctly he basically said same as his partner

> I agree, they are unlikely to get pulled again. 

> Without a good reason

Or until he gets new car and drives ‘flashy’ or ‘erratic’

TBH, and I know they shouldnt have too, but if it was me I’d buy a different style and colour of car that isn’t, whether we like it or not, associated by many people with the ‘gangsta’ scene.  But that’s me - avoiding conflict like the plague!

 Albert Tatlock 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Is that looking out through the privacy / tinted windows  from inside or looking in from the outside, there is a difference 

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Admittedly it's from the inside, and so that's a fair question 

Are there are any windows that would look barely tinted at all from the inside and dark enough to completely obscure the race of the passengers from the outside?  

I've had a look at a couple of photos of the car from the outside, they don't look particularly dark.   In any case the front windows by law have to let through 75% of light so as they weren't charged with anything on this or any previous stops I'm assuming they're compliant with that?

1
 TobyA 09 Jul 2020
In reply to MG:

You're normally very level headed and sensible in your post, so I think your use of "blacks" sounds really odd too. It's not a term that I hear in modern usage in the UK, do you? In teaching - my job, I don't think I've ever heard anyone talking about "blacks", rather than black students or black teachers or just black people, and I've met a few people who aren't necessarily very "pc". There's an interesting debate in some Jewish communities over whether "Jews" is acceptable or whether they should be "Jewish people" etc. because of the use of 'Jews' by anti-semites. "Blacks" sounds a bit old South Africa doesn't it?

3
 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Admittedly it's from the inside, and so that's a fair question 

>   In any case the front windows by law have to let through 75% of light so as they weren't charged with anything on this or any previous stops I'm assuming they're compliant with that?

I don't know any regular cops who carry any devices with him for measuring the tints of glass in a sufficiently calibrated manner to issue a ticket. Traffic cops probably do.  Issuing a ticket for tinted windows, as with taking action for many if not most offences is discretionary for cops, not mandatory.

 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> You're normally very level headed and sensible in your post, so I think your use of "blacks" sounds really odd too. It's not a term that I hear in modern usage in the UK, do you?

Thinking about it, it has come up fairly recently in conversation with or about South Africa and South Africans which is probably why it is in my mind.  I can't be certain but I am fairly certain a black South African was using it freely in these conversations.

 TobyA 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Did you hear last week's File on Four about racism in the police particularly affecting advancement through ranks and into specialist units? I thought one of the most interesting things were how line managers seemed worried about bollocking or ticking off BAME officers for relatively minor things so passed them on to professional standards, where it became a much bigger thing that caused more harm to those officers' careers.

 Albert Tatlock 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Are there are any windows that would look barely tinted at all from the inside and dark enough to completely obscure the race of the passengers from the outside?  

Yes there are, as you say front windscreen to allow 75% light, front side windows 70% any other windows no regulation ie 0 %.

It’s very common for extra tint to be added by some dodgy garages in addition to the manufacturers tint . The general sales pitch is see out with clarity and effectively discourage preying eyes.

I would imagine it makes positively identifying the driver / occupants very difficult for the police unless you are stopped and checked.

I am sure many posters have pulled up next to cars with tints and not  be able to see the occupants other than a blurred unrecognisable figure. 

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Fair enough, that's useful information.

However I think this window tint question is a bit of a non-issue.  I haven't seen any reference to the windows being overly tinted anywhere in the press, or much at all outside of this thread.

What I have read is that the car was a hire car with Mercedes' standard window tint, so bearing this in mind I think we are able to say that it's likely that it would have been aware of the race of the occupants before making the stop.

3
 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Agree 100% with all of this, you're absolutely not wrong.  However given that it's a hire car I don't think that was what was going on here.  

Like you say the rear and windscreen of the car aren't tinted at all (you can see this from the video). 

1
 Snyggapa 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

A slightly obtuse point, but if it was a hire car then adding the car as previously suggested to the "good honest guys, don't stop" list, if such list existed, isn't going to do much good.

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Snyggapa:

Does such a list exist?  Wouldn’t have a clue.  
 

Off duty, what’s your knowledge on that?

1
 Rob Exile Ward 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

I can guess. No. And are you mixing up hire car with lease car?

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I’d have guessed no too, but was interested to hear if anyone knew otherwise.

No idea, reporter from The Times said “hire”, he could have meant leased I suppose?

 Blunderbuss 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> You're confusing bias and opinion.

Your ridiculous opinion strongly suggests bias against the old bill...

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

That's a fair suggestion which I honestly don't know if is true or not.

Despite the impression I may give, I'm not on board with "defund the police".  We need the police, there have to be rules in society otherwise it would be complete anarchy, and as long as there are rules people will break them. 

If I, or somebody I know gets robbed, raped, murdered, conned or anything else then I want to know that the police are going to help find the perpetrator or better still stop it from happening in the first place.  In short we need people to keep us safe.

But some of the facts and figures that we see associated with law enforcement make for grim reading.  This is from BBC news just today:

In 2018-19, police officers in England and Wales used handcuffs just over 300,000 times.  Around 16% of those people cuffed were black.

This means that, when we look at people who were handcuffed relative to their population in the 2011 Census, black people were roughly six times more likely to be handcuffed than white people.

Not all people who get arrested are handcuffed and not all handcuffed people get arrested.

However, the ratio of handcuffing to arrests shows a great discrepancy between black and white people:

• In 2018-19, 452,000 white people were arrested and 210,000 were handcuffed

• Over the same period, 60,000 black people were arrested and 49,000 were handcuffed

It's not just handcuffing.  If you look at arrests & convictions, stop and searches, traffic stops etc you'll find a discrepancy across the board.

I don't think the police should be defunded at all, I think the opposite.  They need more officers, more resources more money time and more talent so that they are able to carry out better work so that these discrepancies can be addressed.

Am I anti police? No, I'm anti the system which has forced the police work in a way that has led to this situation which has alienated so many people.  I'm anti discrimination.

I don't blame the police or individual officers for this situation, I don't think that the police are institutionally racist like many do.  

There is an issue here, and whilst many would say my view is ridiculous (and I concede I can be pretty forthright about these issues!) it is a view which is shared by many others and borne out by the statistics.

3
 Blunderbuss 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Those stats on arrests and cuffing only mean something if analysed against the % of black people committing crime and the types of crime e.g arrest for suspected shoplifting I am sure is far less likely to see you cuffed than suspected gun/knife crime...another way of looking at it, are say white people suspected of gun/knife crime less likely to be cuffed than black people? 

 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

You 13.20 " I'm an unbiased member of the public with no involvement in police matters"

You 14.56 "Why would I be biased one way or the other though?"

You 20.02  "I honestly don't know if is true or not. [if I am biased against the police]"

1
 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

A citation would be helpful too.  FIgure 4 and Table 3 here suggest some serious cherry picking is going on.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

 Iamgregp 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

You’re suggesting black people are more likely to be involved in violent crime than white people? 

In short you’re saying black people are more violent than white people.

Is that true?

7
 Blunderbuss 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> You’re suggesting black people are more likely to be involved in violent crime than white people? 

I am sure they are more likely to be involved in gun/knife crime, yes... 

> In short you’re saying black people are more violent than white people.

Not from any sort of genetic viewpoint, but from a 'cultural' one they seem to be more likely to be drawn to gang culture and the associated violence for whatever reasons that may be... 

3
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> Those stats on arrests and cuffing only mean something if analysed against the % of black people committing crime and the types of crime e.g arrest for suspected shoplifting I am sure is far less likely to see you cuffed than suspected gun/knife

Got any figures to support your speculation that black people are significantly more inclined to criminal behaviour than white people? Figures that would explain at least a 3x discrepancy between arrest/handuffing figures?

1
In reply to captain paranoia:

It would also be interesting to examine the figures for arrest:conviction ratios.

 MG 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> You’re suggesting black people are more likely to be involved in violent crime than white people? 

> In short you’re saying black people are more violent than white people.

B doesn't follow from A. If A is true, there are all sorts of possible social reasons too, such as income.

 DancingOnRock 09 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes. I posted a link above. 
 

It’s not a race issue, it’s an inner city/deprivation issue. Outside of London it’s less likely to be black people. Inside London however, the demographics are much different which is why the statistics appear to show what they do. 
 

Black people are not more inclined to criminal behaviour. The people who live in inner London in deprived areas are more inclined to criminal behaviour. These people tend also to be black. 
 

The issue is, and always has been, why are there deprived areas of London and why isn’t there a balanced mix of black and white people living in deprivation? Is this cultural amongst the way that black children are bought up, or is it due to societal racism. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes. I posted a link above

The Huff Post one? Sadly, Verizon don't offer a proper GDPR opt out, so I can't read it. The page title doesn't sound greatly convincing.

1
 DancingOnRock 09 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

You don’t need to submit any email details to read it. There’s plenty of other studies to google.

 off-duty 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

Unfortunately though the data is often used to try and support a nice easy conclusion one way or the other about racist police, it actual requires considerably more analysis to get some kind of reflection of what is happening.

It's worth following Gareth Hales on Twitter to get some sense of the complexities...

https://twitter.com/gmhales/status/1281268562183819264?s=19

 THE.WALRUS 09 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Does such a list exist?  Wouldn’t have a clue.  

> Off duty, what’s your knowledge on that?

No such list exists.

However, intelligence is routinely submitted on vehicles that are seen in suspicious circumstances, or know to be involved in criminality.

This intelligence is available to the police when they check number plates, or when the vehicle triggers an ANPR camera...making vehicles with intelligence markers far more likely to be stopped.

To counter this, criminals don't use their own cars, and they don't stick with the same car for long. They use hire cars instead, which they change regularly. 

The consequences of this are that hire cars are regularly targeted by the police; especially when driven in the manner described. 

 Iamgregp 10 Jul 2020
In reply to off-duty:

Will do, thanks for the info

 THE.WALRUS 10 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> It would also be interesting to examine the figures for arrest:conviction ratios.

Other figures that would be interesting to examine; the quantity of denigratory comments on UKC whenever theres a suggestion of police impropriety VS the number of positive comments when the police perform well.

There have been two well publicised events within the last fortnight in which police actions have been exemplary;

1.) terrorist murders 3 people in Reading. He was disarmed and arrested by an unarmed cop and;

2.) mass murder in Glasgow during which the offender was shot dead after an unarmed officer very nearly sacrificed his life in order to defend the public*

Not a peep on UKC!

Black athlete makes (what appears to be a spurious) complaint of racial profiling by the Met... and UKC is up in arms! 

Doesn't seem to be very balanced!

* actually the officer was repeatedly stabbed, and very nearly killed, protecting African  immigrants. Racist?!

6
 Blunderbuss 10 Jul 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Those stats on arrests and cuffing only mean something if analysed against the % of black people committing crime and the types of crime e.g arrest for suspected shoplifting I am sure is far less likely to see you cuffed than suspected gun/knife

> Got any figures to support your speculation that black people are significantly more inclined to criminal behaviour than white people? Figures that would explain at least a 3x discrepancy between arrest/handuffing figures?

No, which is why I asked those questions as the data which the other guy posted is worthless unless matched against other data.... 

I am 100% certain they are more likely to be involved in knife/gun crime though which is what stop and search is primarily used to combat...

 TobyA 10 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS: 

No one died in Glasgow besides the perpetrator. Are you calling the police shooting a knife wielding maniac "mass murder"?

3
 TobyA 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> No, 

> I am 100% certain they are

So you don't have any sources, but your hunch means you're certain... 🤔

We haven't even got in to the complications of crime statistics - victim studies versus arrests versus conviction rates and so on.  

2
 Blunderbuss 10 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> So you don't have any sources, but your hunch means you're certain... 🤔

> We haven't even got in to the complications of crime statistics - victim studies versus arrests versus conviction rates and so on.  

Gun/knife crime yes, 100% certain.... 

 THE.WALRUS 10 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

Sorry, that should be 'attempted mass murder'. Six people seriously injured - the perp was stopped by the exceptional actions of an unarmed officer who was nearly killed, and armed officers who shot him before he could continue his rampage.

Just two recent examples of commendable police activity which do not seem to have raised an eyebrow on UKC...which seems odd, given the on-line storm when spurious allegations of racism are raised against the police.

It would appear that the many of the 'usual supects' are quick to point the finger when they feel that police conduct has fallen below par, but blind to any incident whereby the police show competence and bravery. 

Post edited at 14:11
1
 THE.WALRUS 10 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

The stats are there, if you'd care to google them.

Black males are vastly overrepresented as offenders and victims of gun and knife related crime.  

 TobyA 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

You're not even clear what you are 100% certain about. Remember Black Britons are about 3.3% of the population. If they were "more likely to involved" in anything it would be statistically rather noteworthy. Or do you mean more than 3.3 % of gun and knife crimes are committed by black people? Possibly, but then what do you mean by "involved"?  - arrested; charged; found guilty; claimed in a victim survey; or described in news story?

If we are discussing the UK, I imagine a good chunk of the "gun crime" will still be Northern Ireland connected, or rural gun users doing something against licensing regulations, or domestic violence. The first two of those are less likely to involve black people, the third probably roughly equivalent to other sectors of the population.

Knife crime - again a large proportion will be domestic violence again - where presumably ethnicity isn't a significant determinant, but there is lots of data available there from police forces, NGOs, victim surveys, Home Office and so on to check against. Then you have knife crime on the streets, but not in London so less newsworthy. Who commits those offenses in Bradford or Glasgow or Hull is likely to be quite different from London, just because of the demographics of those areas.

What I do know is the media has focused hugely on young men, often, but not solely, black, knifing and occasionally shooting each other in London. If that's where your 100% certainty comes from I wouldn't be so certain. I'd start looking up the actually statistics that are out there, and also looking up the criticism of the statistics that are out there and trying to assess their validity.

3
 TobyA 10 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> The stats are there, if you'd care to google them.

I've read the most recent House of Commons report on gun crime but it doesn't show what you are claiming as it doesn't cover the UK, only England and Wales, and it doesn't have any information on perpertrators, only victims.

And of course it doesn't cover knife crime. So what stats should I be looking at?

Now you are saying black males, and you've said what you mean by "involved", victims and offenders. And you are saying now "over-represented", which is very different from just a proportion of a gross total. So we are getting somewhere. If you narrow it down to young men - lets say 15 to 30, and even more if we exclude NI and Scotland, I suspect you are probably correct - although particularly with knife crime there is probably an awful lot of behaviour that is illegal that doesn't get captured by either police stats or in victim surveys which will be sort of "dark matter" that isn't quantifiable.

But anyway, that's a hugely more specific claim than you first made.

3
 Ridge 10 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> What I do know is the media has focused hugely on young men, often, but not solely, black, knifing and occasionally shooting each other in London. If that's where your 100% certainty comes from I wouldn't be so certain. I'd start looking up the actually statistics that are out there, and also looking up the criticism of the statistics that are out there and trying to assess their validity.

I'd agree that London is what skews the statistics. Be it wages, house prices, wanky jobs that don't exist anywhere else or people getting shooty and stabby, London is where it's all at, and where the media live and therefore focus on.

Likewise all the cases of alleged police racism in the media seem to involve the Met. Off duty posted some interesting links, where it seems there is a far greater proportion of BAME males in the age group likely to be involved in gang violence than there are BAME males in the rest of the London population (which in itself is higher than anywhere else in the UK). 

Throw in deprivation in inner city areas, then if the Met are responding to reports of young males committing crime, driving like dickheads, being involved in drugs or stabbing each other (which young males of all ethnicities tend to do) then it's likely that black males will appear to be being disproportionately targeted when compared to the general % of black people in London. That's just demographics and nothing whatsoever to do with “black people being more prone to criminality” or the police being racist.

mick taylor 10 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Just two recent examples of commendable police activity which do not seem to have raised an eyebrow on UKC...which seems odd, given the on-line storm when spurious allegations of racism are raised against the police.

If you look at the OP, most people are agreeing with Wanderer, so don't know where you get 'online storm' from.

> It would appear that the many of the 'usual suspects' are quick to point the finger when they feel that police conduct has fallen below par, but blind to any incident whereby the police show competence and bravery. 

But its not just the 'usual suspects' is it? Until you posted, everyone appears blind to police competence, probably because, as is often the case, good news is (sadly) overlooked and considered boring.  Glad you posted those examples though.

For the record, unless Bianca and partner put in a formal complaint I am beginning to doubt how 'racist' the police were, so I've shifted my opinion a bit.  Defo over the top policing in my view, but if everything was as they make out then they HAVE to formally complain, so I will shut my gob until then.

Also for the record, I'm the son of a policeman, which I believe has made me slightly biased in favour of the police.  But sadly I have witnessed a number of racists incidents by the police, they do need to be scrutinised.

1
 Blunderbuss 10 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

OK so I googled a bit and the last MoJ stats from 2018 on % of convictions by ethnicity show black people made up 10% of all convictions from 3.3% of the population....asians were 6% from 6.8% of the population.....so asians commit less crime per capita that all other groups clubbed together.

Both groups probably have the same level of issues with poverty and 'racism' to deal with so it can't just be down to those issues as to why there is such disparity between the two groups....

 DancingOnRock 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

Those are very rough national statistics. You need to drill down to local areas. For instance look at Birmingham, London, Manchester and Leicester and look at the breakdowns there. 

 THE.WALRUS 10 Jul 2020
In reply to mick taylor:

Yes, but a sizable number disagree - despite the clear inconsistencies with William's account.

The two incidents I've described were front-page, international headlines. Extremely well covered in the press. But, ignored by commentators on this site...who mysteriously managed to pick-up on the William's story, which was hardly big-news.

There are many police related threads and voices on this site, the majority are disparaging towards the police.

All of which made me consider a lack of balance on this site, particularly in terms of race/ police debate. 

Post edited at 15:53
 Blunderbuss 10 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Very rough? They are official stats....

If you want drill down to individual cities go for it... 

 DancingOnRock 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

I don’t need to, you’re the one quoting generalised rough figures. But as an example for London black people make up 13% of the population but account for 50% of the murder victims and 48% of suspects. 
 

I’m sure if you look at Leicester or Nottingham you’ll see a different figure for Asians. 
 

 Blunderbuss 10 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

No idea what point you are trying to make... The discussion was never around individual cities but are black people more likely to commit crime....so I can't see an issue with national statistics. I chucked in Asians to show another poor ethnic group that doesn't have the same level of convictions. 

 off-duty 10 Jul 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> You're not even clear what you are 100% certain about. Remember Black Britons are about 3.3% of the population. If they were "more likely to involved" in anything it would be statistically rather noteworthy. Or do you mean more than 3.3 % of gun and knife crimes are committed by black people? Possibly, but then what do you mean by "involved"?  - arrested; charged; found guilty; claimed in a victim survey; or described in news story?

> If we are discussing the UK, I imagine a good chunk of the "gun crime" will still be Northern Ireland connected, or rural gun users doing something against licensing regulations, or domestic violence. The first two of those are less likely to involve black people, the third probably roughly equivalent to other sectors of the population.

I "imagine" isn't a good basis for a discussion. I'm almost certain that isn't the case, I'll see if I can dig out any info but I'm pretty sure licensing regs aren't incorporated in to gun crime definition, and the usage of guns in domestics would likely be murder, which I don't think is a significant dent on figures.

> Knife crime - again a large proportion will be domestic violence again - where presumably ethnicity isn't a significant determinant, but there is lots of data available there from police forces, NGOs, victim surveys, Home Office and so on to check against. Then you have knife crime on the streets, but not in London so less newsworthy. Who commits those offenses in Bradford or Glasgow or Hull is likely to be quite different from London, just because of the demographics of those areas.

"A large proportion" being domestic violence? Again not sure where you are getting your figures from.

> What I do know is the media has focused hugely on young men, often, but not solely, black, knifing and occasionally shooting each other in London. If that's where your 100% certainty comes from I wouldn't be so certain. I'd start looking up the actually statistics that are out there, and also looking up the criticism of the statistics that are out there and trying to assess their validity.

That's probably because that these offences in London are leading to a significant number of murders. Which aren't occurring in anywhere even approaching that volume elsewhere.

The problem of gang violence, and specifically black on black gang violence, usually featuring guns, us why Trident was set up about 20 years ago I think, to work with local communities but very much targeting that demographic.

 Iamgregp 10 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Forgive me for pointing out the bleeding obvious, but I didn’t notice you start a thread about either of the two incidents you mentioned, yet here you are posting on the Bianca Williams thread.  
 

Pot kettle?

3
 gazhbo 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/10/police-apologise-woman-told...
 

It seems apologies are actually fairly easy to obtain.  

Ms Flynn makes the rather bizarre claim that this was racist because if she was black she wouldn’t have been able to instruct lawyers.

Post edited at 17:36
Gone for good 10 Jul 2020
In reply to gazhbo:

> It seems apologies are actually fairly easy to obtain.  

> Ms Flynn makes the rather bizarre claim that her this was racist because if she was black she wouldn’t have been able to instruct lawyers.

The Transport Police admitted wrong doing. The Metropolitan police didn't. 

1
 Cobra_Head 10 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

 

> Not a peep on UKC!

You could have always started a post yourself!!
3
 THE.WALRUS 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Forgive me for pointing out the bleeding obvious, but I didn’t notice you start a thread about either of the two incidents you mentioned, yet here you are posting on the Bianca Williams thread.  

> Pot kettle?

My observation was that the very people who seem to trawl the web looking for stories that paint in the police in a bad light, appear to be blind to the stories that paint the police in a good light. 

You'd have a point if I was one these people.

But I'm not. 

So you don't!

Post edited at 18:17
 Iamgregp 10 Jul 2020
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Ah ok, gotcha. It’s ok to be posting in this thread as long as you’re not anti police, but if you are anti police you shouldn’t be posting here but instead should be posting about the two incidents you mentioned, which don’t have threads.

What could be simpler?

6
 Albert Tatlock 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

No, he is not saying that at all, he suggests a more balanced view of all police actions / incidents rather than just the negative anti police posts.

1
 THE.WALRUS 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

That's really not what I was saying.

 Yanis Nayu 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Ah ok, gotcha. It’s ok to be posting in this thread as long as you’re not anti police, but if you are anti police you shouldn’t be posting here but instead should be posting about the two incidents you mentioned, which don’t have threads.

> What could be simpler?

Not clearly and wilfully misrepresenting what he wrote could be simpler. 

 Dax H 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I often wonder of my neighbour over the road is stopped and profiled by the police. Asian bloke living on a tatty council estate in South Leeds (opposite me), drives a fully blacked out range rover with the registration Bullit that is worth about the same price as his house. At least once a day a tricked out Mercedes something or other comes round (including all through lockdown) with a stereo that loud if shakes my windows. The reg on the merc is some connotation of No1 G Star.

Last year they had a fire in an upstairs room and young Asian males were taken away in handcuffs. 

I do wonder what they get up to over there. 

 Dax H 10 Jul 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

In the subject of both profiling and people jumping to conclusions (just like I have done with them over the road) earlier this year armed police shut off the parade of shops at the end of our street. 

According to local social media pages they raided the Pakistani owned shop and found bomb making materials upstairs, this was said by someone who was in the shop at the time. These are the same 3 brothers who couldn't change a battery in a watch between them, who deliver shooing to the local old folk and employ mainly white kids as shelf stacker etc. 

The reality was they raided the white owned sunbed shop next door that happens to have a knocking shop above it and is owned by a known armed robbery merchant. Who is also smart enough not to keep his guns in his place of business so they got nothing on him and let him go. 

I love living in South Leeds, you do see the sights. 

Gone for good 11 Jul 2020
In reply to Dax H:

Sounds a bit too errr.....'adventurous' for my liking!

Post edited at 00:10
 Iamgregp 11 Jul 2020
In reply to Dax H:

Sounds not unsimilar to East Ham in East London where I live. I love it round here but some things happen, it’s a pretty crazy area...

 DancingOnRock 11 Jul 2020
In reply to Blunderbuss:

And I’m saying in general back people are not more likely to commit crime. Underprivileged people in certain areas are more likely to commit crime. In London these people are more likely to be black. Ergo, in London the crime is more likely to be committed by black people. 
Ergo, Looking at statistics for the whole country only gives you a very generalised picture and tells you nothing, looking at London figures tells you what you need to know for London. 
 

In East London targeting black people is the right thing to do. Maybe in Poole - it isn’t. 

Post edited at 05:08
 Dax H 11 Jul 2020
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Sounds not unsimilar to East Ham in East London where I live. I love it round here but some things happen, it’s a pretty crazy area...

Not even close to the same level as your area but still interesting. More importantly though its cheap housing. 

 Blunderbuss 11 Jul 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

So I provided you with official statistics that show black people are more likely to be convicted of crime in the UK and you seemingly ignore this and start pulling out stats for individual cities, very odd...as I said I also purposely put in stats for another ethnic group who live in deprived communities that showed they commit less crime than the national average.

You can argue the reasons why there is such a large disparity between the black and asian communities (I suspect the stronger family unit in Asian communities and religion play a big part) but you can't deny this disparity exists or that black people are not more likely to be convicted of a crime than the rest of the population because the stats are there. 

Anyway, no more from me...so have the last word if you wish. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...