Bianca Williams partner stopped by police again
Discussion
untakenname said:
Looks like the majority of people (bar a 'wellness Dr') are calling him out in his tweets
https://twitter.com/rdss400/status/155876024688089...
To to prevent riots whenever the Police in America deal with potential high profile incidents within hours they have posted the full bodycam footage online from the very start of the interaction so false narratives can be prevented, I'm not sure why the UK doesn't follow this lead.
I think this would be a good idea.https://twitter.com/rdss400/status/155876024688089...
To to prevent riots whenever the Police in America deal with potential high profile incidents within hours they have posted the full bodycam footage online from the very start of the interaction so false narratives can be prevented, I'm not sure why the UK doesn't follow this lead.
If someone wants to publish their own edited footage then the police should be allowed to publish theirs (unedited though).
We have plenty of police interceptor type programs where failures to stop are shown without any need for the suspects permission, so why not cases like this?
Edited by 98elise on Monday 15th August 18:20
Lord Marylebone said:
He is repeatedly stating on Twitter that he was looking for a safe place to stop, quoting Highway Code 106 "You must then pull over and stop as soon as it is safe to do so" and saying that he was finding somewhere safe to stop, and that he wasn't going to stop in the middle of the main road as he deemed it unsafe.
Personally I would have stopped where the Police asked me to, and trusted their judgement regarding where was safe.
My guess is that nothing will come of any of this, from either side. The argument they had once he had stopped was probably the end of it.
Yeah I get that, but he drove past an awful lot of places where he could have stopped quite safely, so I think I'll call bullsPersonally I would have stopped where the Police asked me to, and trusted their judgement regarding where was safe.
My guess is that nothing will come of any of this, from either side. The argument they had once he had stopped was probably the end of it.
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Monday 15th August 13:23
t on his claims.As others have said, he lost the plot totally at the point where the police tried to bring him to a halt and he drove around them and sped off.
Anyone know why in the 3/3 video he posted where he is talking to the police he has his left hand down the front of his trousers holding his c***? never lets go of it throughout the entire sequence.
And about the 20 second mark he appears to drop something on the floor - maybe get him for littering as well
And about the 20 second mark he appears to drop something on the floor - maybe get him for littering as well
Durzel said:
It is odd.. there are regular flashes at the top of the video which are strange, but could just be camera artifacts. If they had blue lights on behind him I'd expect all of the road furniture to be lit up by it as well, like it does at the end of the video.
Pretty sure that's each street light reflecting within the camera's lens/cover.I've been stopped twice in 17 years driving, on both occasions I was driving like a t*t so the stops were justified and on both occasions I was let off with a slap on the wrist i.e: don't do that again. One was a right turn where it's clearly not permitted and the other was blatant speeding. On both occasions I was polite, admitted the mistake and all was dandy. I also stopped when the police told me to though for the 1st stop it was on a busy crossroad so had to drive a bit further albeit we are talking a couple of hundred feet not 2 miles!
For context I'm Asian and the first stop was in a rough-ish area, lone copper and random people started surrounding my car (well the copper) trying to get involved. I didn't engage , let the copper shoo them away. I was also sporting a questionable haircut (didn't we all in our yoof) and my car at the time was lowered, blacked out tints, private plate....an East London special by all accounts but in general I've found if you keep it respectful and polite, ack if you are in the wrong... the majority* of the time things get resolved quickly and peacefully.
For context I'm Asian and the first stop was in a rough-ish area, lone copper and random people started surrounding my car (well the copper) trying to get involved. I didn't engage , let the copper shoo them away. I was also sporting a questionable haircut (didn't we all in our yoof) and my car at the time was lowered, blacked out tints, private plate....an East London special by all accounts but in general I've found if you keep it respectful and polite, ack if you are in the wrong... the majority* of the time things get resolved quickly and peacefully.
- Ack that I am not Black and the fact I've been stopped twice in 17 yrs means my experience and perceptions might be skewed a different way and I know of friends who had bad experiences with Police so there are clearly still issues to iron out with the use of stops
Edited by VR99 on Monday 15th August 16:29
Earthdweller said:
andyA700 said:
Really, given what happened the previous time, when both of them were handcuffed whilst the baby was left alone in the car. Do you think it is appropriate that seven police officers were sent to deal with this, you know, someone suspected of using their mobile phone whilst driving? Their three year old child's details are now on a police database - why?
The Met Police have a very bad history, very bad indeed and you don't need to scratch the surface very deeply to come up with absolute horror stories about them.
I would advise anyone to record any interaction like this one with police, because quite frankly, they cannot be trusted.
Let’s just put this into perspective The Met Police have a very bad history, very bad indeed and you don't need to scratch the surface very deeply to come up with absolute horror stories about them.
I would advise anyone to record any interaction like this one with police, because quite frankly, they cannot be trusted.
It was 4am .. officers in one car saw the Tesla being driven and believed the driver was using a mobile phone
They indicated for it to stop
The vehicle failed to stop and the officers in the first car called for advanced pursuit trained assistance (someone on Twitter has plotted the distance and it was about 2 miles)
When the advanced pursuit vehicles with pursuit trained officers arrived and signalled for the car to stop .. it didn’t
A Police Armed response vehicle overtook the car and slowed in front of it
The Tesla attempted to drive around the Police ARV
The Armed offficers were there as they were in
1. An advanced pursuit authorised vehicle
2. They are advanced trained drivers who are authorised to pursue
Summons him for using a phone (if he was) and failing to stop for police
Complete non story
It is rather odd, what is an athlete doing out on the road at 4am, I know that is not a crime but certainly a bit odd, and why would you not just stop? Roads were empty, at that time, no need to make to worse, clearly a guy thinking he is being hounded by the police when in fact they were just doing their job.
He escalated the situation, not them.
He escalated the situation, not them.
LukeBrown66 said:
It is rather odd, what is an athlete doing out on the road at 4am, I know that is not a crime but certainly a bit odd, and why would you not just stop? Roads were empty, at that time, no need to make to worse, clearly a guy thinking he is being hounded by the police when in fact they were just doing their job.
He escalated the situation, not them.
Firstly, I think the guy's an idiot. Trying to claim "Der police did a racism!!!" when he's acted like an absolute arse and, let's be honest, they wouldn't even have been able to see the colour of his skin until he finally gave up 2 miles up the road. He escalated the situation, not them.
But, when I was rowing at national level I was out before 5am a few days every week, all seasons, to meet a rather demanding training schedule. I'd imagine international-level athletes have at least as arduous a routine.
I don't recall ever starting my training by causing a police chase...
272BHP said:
Anyone know why in the 3/3 video he posted where he is talking to the police he has his left hand down the front of his trousers holding his c***? never lets go of it throughout the entire sequence.
And about the 20 second mark he appears to drop something on the floor - maybe get him for littering as well
This is normal behaviour whilst talking to the police even outside London. In Newcastle the youth do it all the time, I must have told people to take their hands of their c**k whilst talking to me literally hundreds of times. You see people literally walking down the street doing it all the time. And about the 20 second mark he appears to drop something on the floor - maybe get him for littering as well
The advice always used to be that if you're in any doubt about the legitimacy of the police pulling you over, then you should acknowledge them and drive to the nearest police station. These days, a lot of police stations have been closed, and I doubt if I was in this situation near home they'd sit back for 15 miles while I drove to the nearest one. So, presumably stopping and phoning 999 will allow you to verify that it's a legitimate stop and any officer is presumably happy to wait if you explain or even just show your phone through the window so they can see you have dialled 999.
The important part being that you communicate this to the police officer pulling you over.
The important part being that you communicate this to the police officer pulling you over.
No one should have to justify why they were out at 4am.
The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
Ian Geary said:
No one should have to justify why they were out at 4am.
The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
You're trying to find technicalities that aren't there in the bold bits... Through car windows you can see an illuminated phone screen. Especially when it's dark. The police seeing someone use a phone (or thinking they saw someone use a phone) whilst driving makes them concerned that someone is using a phone whilst driving.The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
If the police try to stop someone for a chat and that person scarpers, do you not think the police should stop them to find out why they're so keen to run away? I don't know a single country on Earth where running from the police won't result in the police chasing you.
Definitely agree with your final sentence though!
donkmeister said:
The advice always used to be that if you're in any doubt about the legitimacy of the police pulling you over, then you should acknowledge them and drive to the nearest police station. These days, a lot of police stations have been closed, and I doubt if I was in this situation near home they'd sit back for 15 miles while I drove to the nearest one. So, presumably stopping and phoning 999 will allow you to verify that it's a legitimate stop and any officer is presumably happy to wait if you explain or even just show your phone through the window so they can see you have dialled 999.
The important part being that you communicate this to the police officer pulling you over.
Why would anyone be in doubt? They are diving a bloody massive marked BMW X5?The important part being that you communicate this to the police officer pulling you over.
Ian Geary said:
No one should have to justify why they were out at 4am.
The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
Presumably they were concerned someone was using a telephone because they saw someone who they thought was using a telephone, which bit of that are you having difficulty understanding? The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
Greendubber said:
Ian Geary said:
No one should have to justify why they were out at 4am.
The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
Presumably they were concerned someone was using a telephone because they saw someone who they thought was using a telephone, which bit of that are you having difficulty understanding? The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
272BHP said:
Anyone know why in the 3/3 video he posted where he is talking to the police he has his left hand down the front of his trousers holding his c***? never lets go of it throughout the entire sequence.
And about the 20 second mark he appears to drop something on the floor - maybe get him for littering as well
The 27-year-old told the BBC his phone was between his thighs, and accused the Met of "over-policing".And about the 20 second mark he appears to drop something on the floor - maybe get him for littering as well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62546...
Who keeps their phone between their thighs while driving unless they're using it/or has been using it.
rscott said:
Greendubber said:
Ian Geary said:
No one should have to justify why they were out at 4am.
The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
Presumably they were concerned someone was using a telephone because they saw someone who they thought was using a telephone, which bit of that are you having difficulty understanding? The thing that puzzles me is the police were "concerned" the driver was using a phone.
Not that they "saw" them use a phone, or drive erratically etc, but were "concerned" about it none the less.
And their objective was to "talk" to the driver about it.
What exactly was that conversation going to achieve?
Unless the driver is a moron and admits breaking the law (which scarily seems quite a successful tactic on those police interceptor shows) there was naff all the plod could achieve with a "talk" about a "concern" of using a phone if there was no evidence of them actually using a phone.
So to me, the whole venture is a bit wiffy on the police's part, and seemed like a fishing expedition.
Why weren't they concerned he was driving without a seatbelt? Driving without a license? Wanted for skipping a warrant etc? There was just as much evidence (ie none) of those crimes as using a phone.
Having said all that - the guy handled it like a donut, and is clearly wanting some sympathy from the socials before his original iopc complaints are heard imo.
On the balance of not giving someone a ticket which is discretionary anyway versus a potential world of hurt with my name in the media and bringing grief to my family I know what I’d chose.
techguyone said:
The 27-year-old told the BBC his phone was between his thighs, and accused the Met of "over-policing".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62546...
Who keeps their phone between their thighs while driving unless they're using it/or has been using it.
Surely anyone with a new Tesla stores the phone on the charging mat and if they want to make a call they use hands free - unless of course he has 2 phones?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62546...
Who keeps their phone between their thighs while driving unless they're using it/or has been using it.
I remain baffled by the video footage though. He clearly drops something on the floor on purpose and if you look he did it at the exact moment that all 4 coppers in view had no line of sight of him doing so - but why post that footage online if he really was doing something dodgy?
Either he is properly stupid or he is trolling all of us.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff