Bianca Williams stop accusing race motivated.

[Red 4]

CoolHands said:

To me it’s pretty obvious that as a copper I would not be stopping people unless they’ve performed some major incontrovertible traffic offence. Maybe that’s the way it should be eg no stopping anyone on some kind of ‘suspicion’ which is naturally open to bias. Same with chasing after little scrotes.

You'd make a st copper then.

P.S. Police don't need a reason to stop you.

[biggbn]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thanks man. Still not something i personally agree with, but I can see both sides. So, to clarify, car posted earlier was not the car driven? Rather clumsy posting by someone, OR, I have been rather naive in assuming it was. Puts a different perspective on everything given the assumption was she lied about the lack of tints.

[Greendubber]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I posted the picture, it's their car outside their house with a reporter next to it on Sky News doing his bit about the incident

I dont know if its light or reflection, the rear windows do look darker than the fronts but that's the same with any car with privacy glass. They may well not be tinted in the front but if the police carrier is following from behind as its driving off they still cant see into it due to the privacy glass. I have it in my car, you can barely see through it when looking in.

[biggbn]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thanks again brother man, much appreciated.

[Red 4]

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

[Greendubber]

Red 4 said:

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

Yep.

[Red 4]

Greendubber said:

Red 4 said:

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

Yep.

Williams' phone footage is all over the place too. 99.9% certain the dodgy footage makes the incident look worse than it actually was.

If Williams or her boyfriend have an issue with being stopped and are so offended then maybe they should both surrender their driving licences.
Don't like the rules of the game, then don't play.

[biggbn]

Red 4 said:

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

Because many used the excuse that the police could not see inside the car to justify the policeman with baton's aggresive stance. The last poster has explained this is standard practice regardless. So, turns out it did not need justification at all from that perspective. I am now very interested in how this pans out. I had (naively) thought Williams must have been lying about the tints (which many have also used to preclude any racial motivation) when i seen the pictures of the apparentjy heavily tinted windows. She was not as the cctv shows. She also denied the car was on the wrong side of the road. My previous assumption was if she was lying about the windiws, this too may be a lie. Now, I'm not so sure. Hopefully the police videos shine more light on this, one wonders how long we will have to wait to see the video of the car speeding off, swerving to the wrong side of the road. Hopefully not to long. Anyone looking from either 'side' of this argument can surely now see the situation needs reviewed, witness statements collated and videos and cctv compared. Why wasn't the driver charged with driving off and/or speeding or dangerous driving? How can a police van determine if he was speeding? If offences were committed why no charges, why the cuffs, why the aggressuve stance, and by one officer only? Its not the kind of policing I'm used to but am both happy, and slightly saddened, to concede it may be the Met way.

Edited by biggbn on Tuesday 7th July 22:51

[Bigends]

Red 4 said:

Greendubber said:

Red 4 said:

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

Yep.

Williams' phone footage is all over the place too. 99.9% certain the dodgy footage makes the incident look worse than it actually was.

If Williams or her boyfriend have an issue with being stopped and are so offended then maybe they should both surrender their driving licences.
Don't like the rules of the game, then don't play.

Hold on, she wasnt driving. The whole incident is nowt to do with her - she was a back seat passenger

[PZR]

Bigends said:

Crop from a still doing the rounds on the net. May be from the pub cctv mentioned in another post. Windscreen and front side windows appear clear - not tinted

This is key to the 'wrong-way-down-one-way-street' part of the story. The cctv is from the Angie's Free House pub on the corner of Woodfield Road and Woodfield Place W9, and the Mercedes has just driven past a No Entry sign where Woodfield Road becomes One Way, after the junction with Woodfield Place, which is the junction just visible on the extreme right of the above still. The TSG van behind is near the junction with Great Western Road.

All easily viewable on Google Maps.

[biggbn]

PZR said:

Bigends said:

Crop from a still doing the rounds on the net. May be from the pub cctv mentioned in another post. Windscreen and front side windows appear clear - not tinted

This is key to the 'wrong-way-down-one-way-street' part of the story. The cctv is from the Angie's Free House pub on the corner of Woodfield Road and Woodfield Place W9, and the Mercedes has just driven past a No Entry sign where Woodfield Road becomes One Way, after the junction with Woodfield Place, which is the junction just visible on the extreme right of the above still. The TSG van behind is near the junction with Great Western Road.

All easily viewable on Google Maps.

Why are cars parked facing both ways? Sorry perhaps I am being dim. And why no ticket?

[Greendubber]

biggbn said:

Red 4 said:

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

Because many used the excuse that the police could not see inside the car to justify the policeman with baton's aggresive stance. The last poster has explained this is standard practice regardless. So, turns out it did not need justification at all from that perspective. I am now very interested in how this pans out. I had (naively) thought Williams must have been lying about the tints (which many have also used to preclude any racial motivation) when i seen the pictures of the apparentjy heavily tinted windows. She was not as the cctv shows. She also denied the car was on the wrong side of the road. My previous assumption was if she was lying about the windiws, this too may be a lie. Now, I'm not so sure. Hopefully the police videos shine more light on this, one wonders how long we will have to wait to see the video of the car speeding off, swerving to the wrong side of the road. Hopefully not to long. Anyone looking from either 'side' of this argument can surely now see the situation needs reviewed, witness statements collated and videos and cctv compared. Why wasn't the driver charged with driving off and/or speeding or dangerous driving? How can a police van determine if he was speeding? If offences were committed why no charges, why the cuffs, why the aggressuve stance, and by one officer only? Its not the kind of policing I'm used to but am both happy, and slightly saddened, to concede it may be the Met way.

Edited by biggbn on Tuesday 7th July 22:51

Sec 117 of PACE allows force to be used when carrying out a PACE search so handcuffing isn't anything unusual.

If you're searching someone for weapons you dont really want them to be able to get to anything. Let's remember the non compliance when asked to pull over too, it all forms basis for justification for any use of force.

[wjb]

Bigends said:

Hold on, she wasnt driving. The whole incident is nowt to do with her - she was a back seat passenger

She's well within her rights to complain about the stop.

She's clearly there and affected by what has happened.

[Red 4]

Bigends said:

Red 4 said:

Greendubber said:

Red 4 said:

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

Yep.

Williams' phone footage is all over the place too. 99.9% certain the dodgy footage makes the incident look worse than it actually was.

If Williams or her boyfriend have an issue with being stopped and are so offended then maybe they should both surrender their driving licences.
Don't like the rules of the game, then don't play.

Hold on, she wasnt driving. The whole incident is nowt to do with her - she was a back seat passenger

The incident has everything to do with her, she's the one making allegations of racism.

It's very simple - goad police, fail to stop, behave like a fool, then don't be surprised if something happens that you don't like.

The whole thing was staged anyway. All you need to do is look at the full video.

[biggbn]

Greendubber said:

biggbn said:

Red 4 said:

Why is everyone getting obsessed about whether the front windows are tinted or not ?

The vehicle failed to stop/ made off. That's enough to justify the police upping the ante.

Because many used the excuse that the police could not see inside the car to justify the policeman with baton's aggresive stance. The last poster has explained this is standard practice regardless. So, turns out it did not need justification at all from that perspective. I am now very interested in how this pans out. I had (naively) thought Williams must have been lying about the tints (which many have also used to preclude any racial motivation) when i seen the pictures of the apparentjy heavily tinted windows. She was not as the cctv shows. She also denied the car was on the wrong side of the road. My previous assumption was if she was lying about the windiws, this too may be a lie. Now, I'm not so sure. Hopefully the police videos shine more light on this, one wonders how long we will have to wait to see the video of the car speeding off, swerving to the wrong side of the road. Hopefully not to long. Anyone looking from either 'side' of this argument can surely now see the situation needs reviewed, witness statements collated and videos and cctv compared. Why wasn't the driver charged with driving off and/or speeding or dangerous driving? How can a police van determine if he was speeding? If offences were committed why no charges, why the cuffs, why the aggressuve stance, and by one officer only? Its not the kind of policing I'm used to but am both happy, and slightly saddened, to concede it may be the Met way.

Edited by biggbn on Tuesday 7th July 22:51

Sec 117 of PACE allows force to be used when carrying out a PACE search so handcuffing isn't anything unusual.

If you're searching someone for weapons you dont really want them to be able to get to anything. Let's remember the non compliance when asked to pull over too, it all forms basis for justification for any use of force.

As I conceded man, it may be the Met way. I'm just not used to it. Why no charges?

[davidball]

Earthdweller said:

Hello David, how’s Belgium ?

Any thoughts on the Belgian Police and all the deaths at the hands of their “racial profiling”

Or is it just the British Police you have an issue with?

https://www.brusselstimes.com/opinion/106285/state...

Belgium is great thanks.

As for the Belgian police, I am opposed to police brutality, racial profiling and immunity from prosecution wherever it occurs. In whichever country it occurs. I expect a higher standard of policing from the UK forces so when they fail so miserably it is a deep disappointment.

The police referring themselves to the IOPC is a cynical ploy designed to gain some semblance of credit. Naive of them to think the public would be fooled by it.

[Bigends]

PZR said:

Bigends said:

Crop from a still doing the rounds on the net. May be from the pub cctv mentioned in another post. Windscreen and front side windows appear clear - not tinted

This is key to the 'wrong-way-down-one-way-street' part of the story. The cctv is from the Angie's Free House pub on the corner of Woodfield Road and Woodfield Place W9, and the Mercedes has just driven past a No Entry sign where Woodfield Road becomes One Way, after the junction with Woodfield Place, which is the junction just visible on the extreme right of the above still. The TSG van behind is near the junction with Great Western Road.

All easily viewable on Google Maps.

Assume he went straight on here

[PZR]

PZR said:

Bigends said:

Crop from a still doing the rounds on the net. May be from the pub cctv mentioned in another post. Windscreen and front side windows appear clear - not tinted

This is key to the 'wrong-way-down-one-way-street' part of the story. The cctv is from the Angie's Free House pub on the corner of Woodfield Road and Woodfield Place W9, and the Mercedes has just driven past a No Entry sign where Woodfield Road becomes One Way, after the junction with Woodfield Place, which is the junction just visible on the extreme right of the above still. The TSG van behind is near the junction with Great Western Road.

All easily viewable on Google Maps.

Woodfield Road W9, junction with Woodfield Place on the left, Angie's Free House on the corner:

[PZR]

Bigends said:

PZR said:

Bigends said:

Crop from a still doing the rounds on the net. May be from the pub cctv mentioned in another post. Windscreen and front side windows appear clear - not tinted

This is key to the 'wrong-way-down-one-way-street' part of the story. The cctv is from the Angie's Free House pub on the corner of Woodfield Road and Woodfield Place W9, and the Mercedes has just driven past a No Entry sign where Woodfield Road becomes One Way, after the junction with Woodfield Place, which is the junction just visible on the extreme right of the above still. The TSG van behind is near the junction with Great Western Road.

All easily viewable on Google Maps.

Assume he went straight on here

I see two different road layouts with regard to No Entries. My Google Maps image says capture was March 2017. Has the No Entry been moved from Woodfield Road to Woodfield Place, or vice-versa?

[biggbn]

PZR said:

PZR said:

Bigends said:

Crop from a still doing the rounds on the net. May be from the pub cctv mentioned in another post. Windscreen and front side windows appear clear - not tinted

This is key to the 'wrong-way-down-one-way-street' part of the story. The cctv is from the Angie's Free House pub on the corner of Woodfield Road and Woodfield Place W9, and the Mercedes has just driven past a No Entry sign where Woodfield Road becomes One Way, after the junction with Woodfield Place, which is the junction just visible on the extreme right of the above still. The TSG van behind is near the junction with Great Western Road.

All easily viewable on Google Maps.

Woodfield Road W9, junction with Woodfield Place on the left, Angie's Free House on the corner:

In the footage of the mercedes there are cars parked both ways. If i understand the no entry sign is opposite the pub, so the Tigra must also be facing wrong way? Unless I am reading this wrong? Going through a no entry with police behind shoujd surely have generated a ticket, as should being on wrong side of road, driving off, speeding and dicking around generally, yes? Unless a mistake was made and police decided to let things swerve?