Bianca Williams stop accusing race motivated.

[eldar]

Bigends said:

The driver failed to stop - NOT the passenger

Never seems to inhibit the Police from arresting and cuffing passengers on the many tv documentaries.

Videoing the police seems to be the answer.

[biggbn]

Greendubber said:

biggbn said:

Bigends said:

biggbn said:

Vanden Saab said:

biggbn said:

eldar said:

biggbn said:

Mmm? Another new spin on things. I am glad they have done so as the (admittedly one sided) footage, accepted practice or not, looked dreadful. I wonder what their reasons are?

Very good question. One could assume the body worn camera footage was ‘interesting’.

I wondered about this during yesterday's posting. It must surely provide little if any saving grace if this volte face is anything to go by. It would, nonetheless, be interesting to find out how many of the initial accusations were true? I'm rather torn by this, if this is a political decision it somewhat emasculates the police going forward and serves nobody, ultimately, much good. If it is because of malpractice it shows that some/all of the police involved were willing to fabricate a story to cover up a badly handled situation. Neither of those reasons give me much solace

It may be that the evidence that the police followed all procedures is so overwhelming that referring the matter to the IOPC will show the true story. If that is the case we should welcome it.

So why apologise? I'm not au fait with how all this works, sorry. Surely if the evidence is overwhelmingly pro police side, no apology is required, and any apology emasculates the police moving forward, Rod with which to beat them with etc.. And why has Dick suggested cuffing protocol needs reviewed?

Because cuffs are being used unnecessarily. They are a use of force and have to be justified. Get the rules changed so that every detained person gets cuffed or stick to the current rules

Thanks, that is a different stance than some who have quoted PACE and shown the cuffing was necessary and justified? I guess it will always come down to an individuals interpretation of both the guidelines and the situation.

Those officers can justify handcuffs all day long in those circumstances. I. Amazed Bigends was once a police officer.

So do you think Dick is just playing the appeasement game saying it needs reviewed?

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

biggbn said:

it gets stranger. Dame Cressida has said that bodycam and van footage has been examined and no misconduct was found. So why apologise? Also, Dick has suggested handcuffing procedures need reviewing and Starmer, again, hardly impartial, but a QC has stated the standards needed to cuff the couple were not met, no pun intended. I predict a veritable $hitstorm!!

Looks like the apology mailnly refers to the upset caused to Bianca Williams rather than the stop as a whole. At the time of the stop, the issue was with the manner of driving - not the back seat passenger. Its not as if shed been seen waving a knife or machete out of the window. As soon as the back door was opened and they saw a young woman and baby in the back, perhaps things could have been explained to her more calmly, allow her to get the baby and move her off to one side whilst the driver - the cause of the issue - was dealt with. Instead of diving straight in with cuffs and restraint. Cuffs should be used if there is fear of flight or violence likely to be offered and not as a matter of routine as now often seems to be the case.

The female officer speaking to the rear seat occupant was calm, the ante was raised by her not the police.

Fear of flight for handcufding is made out as the vehicle had just made off! So despite it being looked at twice, no misconduct found and because of a media frenzy spineless Dick is pandering to them and apologising. Well done Commissioner you've just made your officers job then times harder.

There was little or no fear of flight by the passenger no matter how you twist the circumstances. She had to be pulled out of the car so was unlikely to do a runner

How do you know? A vehicle has just made off, why did it go, who's in it? It's all well and good you banging on with the benefit of hind sight. It's about what those officers can justify at the time, which they will.

[Greendubber]

biggbn said:

Greendubber said:

biggbn said:

Bigends said:

biggbn said:

Vanden Saab said:

biggbn said:

eldar said:

biggbn said:

Mmm? Another new spin on things. I am glad they have done so as the (admittedly one sided) footage, accepted practice or not, looked dreadful. I wonder what their reasons are?

Very good question. One could assume the body worn camera footage was ‘interesting’.

I wondered about this during yesterday's posting. It must surely provide little if any saving grace if this volte face is anything to go by. It would, nonetheless, be interesting to find out how many of the initial accusations were true? I'm rather torn by this, if this is a political decision it somewhat emasculates the police going forward and serves nobody, ultimately, much good. If it is because of malpractice it shows that some/all of the police involved were willing to fabricate a story to cover up a badly handled situation. Neither of those reasons give me much solace

It may be that the evidence that the police followed all procedures is so overwhelming that referring the matter to the IOPC will show the true story. If that is the case we should welcome it.

So why apologise? I'm not au fait with how all this works, sorry. Surely if the evidence is overwhelmingly pro police side, no apology is required, and any apology emasculates the police moving forward, Rod with which to beat them with etc.. And why has Dick suggested cuffing protocol needs reviewed?

Because cuffs are being used unnecessarily. They are a use of force and have to be justified. Get the rules changed so that every detained person gets cuffed or stick to the current rules

Thanks, that is a different stance than some who have quoted PACE and shown the cuffing was necessary and justified? I guess it will always come down to an individuals interpretation of both the guidelines and the situation.

Those officers can justify handcuffs all day long in those circumstances. I. Amazed Bigends was once a police officer.

So do you think Dick is just playing the appeasement game saying it needs reviewed?

Yep, I think so. She'd have been better off not bothering to be honest but maybe she doesnt want a BLM st storm on her doorstep.

[biggbn]

Greendubber said:

Yep, I think so. She'd have been better off not bothering to be honest but maybe she doesnt want a BLM st storm on her doorstep.

Interesting. Thanks . I suspect this has more legs and more to come out.

[Armchair Expert]

Bigends said:

The driver failed to stop - NOT the passenger

Because passanger don't get involved in crime?

[biggbn]

Armchair Expert said:

Bigends said:

The driver failed to stop - NOT the passenger

Because passanger don't get involved in crime?

But they do get public apologies from police forces....go figure.

[Zoon]

over_the_hill said:

I suspect that it isn't quite that simple. The majority of stop and searches likely happen in large cities where ethnic and minority groups are not quite so minority. How many stop and searches get carried out in areas like Norfolk or Lanarkshire.
As ever statistics can be misleading.

44% of Londoners are from ethnic minorities.

[Zoon]

Armchair Expert said:

Bigends said:

The driver failed to stop - NOT the passenger

Because passanger don't get involved in crime?

But had she got out of the vehicle without being hysterical and filming it on a mobile phone she wouldn't have been handcuffed.
She contradicts herself when using her child as the reason she couldn't leave the vehicle, and then proceeds to say it doesn't understand what's happening.

So had she got out of the car without fanfare the child would have been none the wiser.

As I say it's a slippery slope, as the police are pandering and apologising when they have done nothing wrong.

It sets a dangerous precedent to leave actual crimes unchallenged because the person suspected of committing them has the wrong colour skin.

[Bigends]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMn3_VJZJWc

[DeWar]

over_the_hill said:

DeWar said:

Zoon said:

Slippery slope, soon the Police will be unable to stop a black driver for fear of repercussions.

67% of stop and searches are carried out on white people. But I don't see any outrage about that.

Why would there be outrage about people who constitute 90% of the population getting stopped 67% of the time?

I suspect that it isn't quite that simple. The majority of stop and searches likely happen in large cities where ethnic and minority groups are not quite so minority. How many stop and searches get carried out in areas like Norfolk or Lanarkshire.
As ever statistics can be misleading.

I agree with you - there is more nuance than can be conveyed merely via numbers. My original point stands - there is no outrage about white people being stopped and searched because there is no evidence - credible or otherwise - that they get stopped purely for being white.

[Zoon]

Bigends said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMn3_VJZJWc

We know they apologised for the "distress" caused.
But the Police then made a statement saying there was no evidence of misconduct, so why apologise?

Maybe to pander to BLM and difuse any planned riots?

I know for a fact I wouldn't apologise for something I hadn't done, so why are the Police?

[biggbn]

Zoon said:

Armchair Expert said:

Bigends said:

The driver failed to stop - NOT the passenger

Because passanger don't get involved in crime?

But had she got out of the vehicle without being hysterical and filming it on a mobile phone she wouldn't have been handcuffed.
She contradicts herself when using her child as the reason she couldn't leave the vehicle, and then proceeds to say it doesn't understand what's happening.

So had she got out of the car without fanfare the child would have been none the wiser.

As I say it's a slippery slope, as the police are pandering and apologising when they have done nothing wrong.

It sets a dangerous precedent to leave actual crimes unchallenged because the person suspected of committing them has the wrong colour skin.

I am rather concerned by the continual statements that they did nothing wrong. Many of the Internet allegations that have reason for the police actions, tints too dark, driving wrong way down a one way street have been shown to be incorrect. Williams denies the car was on the wrong side of the road. And. The police have apologised. I am not saying that the couple are innocent, that the incident was racially motivated, even that they deserve an apology, but to blindly pit faith in one side on the evidence of a heavily cut video, that frankly does not look great, is blind faith of the highest order. I will follow this with interest as one, or perhaps both of the parties are going to look rather foolish when all evidence is collated and presented

[Zoon]

DeWar said:

I agree with you - there is more nuance than can be conveyed merely via numbers. My original point stands - there is no outrage about white people being stopped and searched because there is no evidence - credible or otherwise - that they get stopped purely for being white.

Maybe there is no outrage because they accept it for what it is, the Police doing their job.

[Hackney]

eldar said:

Police apologise.

Bianca Williams: Met apologises to sprinter over stop-and-search https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53307...

Seems the police accept they were wrong.

They’ve apologised for distress caused, not that anything was wrong in their reasons for the stop.

[Alucidnation]

Ok great, can we see the full footage now?

[Zoon]

biggbn said:

I am rather concerned by the continual statements that they did nothing wrong. Many of the Internet allegations that have reason for the police actions, tints too dark, driving wrong way down a one way street have been shown to be incorrect. Williams denies the car was on the wrong side of the road. And. The police have apologised. I am not saying that the couple are innocent, that the incident was racially motivated, even that they deserve an apology, but to blindly pit faith in one side on the evidence of a heavily cut video, that frankly does not look great, is blind faith of the highest order. I will follow this with interest as one, or perhaps both of the parties are going to look rather foolish when all evidence is collated and presented

Cressida Dick herself said she's reviewed all the video evidence and there was no misconduct.

Therefore apologising sends out the wrong message.

[biggbn]

Hackney said:

eldar said:

Police apologise.

Bianca Williams: Met apologises to sprinter over stop-and-search https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53307...

Seems the police accept they were wrong.

They’ve apologised for distress caused, not that anything was wrong in their reasons for the stop.

Is the distress caused not directly linked to how the stop was conducted? Pukled from car, cuffed, aggressive looking cop with baton raised? It is all linked. Again, i believe (naively?) the stop was justified, and the couple played a part in creating the nasty atmosphere. But it looked badly handled thereafter. Hence the upset and apology? Unless it is an appeasement in which case the whole thing becomes farcical

[JagLover]

Greendubber said:

Yep, I think so. She'd have been better off not bothering to be honest but maybe she doesnt want a BLM st storm on her doorstep.

Cressida was just bowing to the mob, but at least she didn't throw the police officers involved under the bus, as she said there was no misconduct. That is about the best thing that could be said about her.

[biggbn]

Zoon said:

biggbn said:

I am rather concerned by the continual statements that they did nothing wrong. Many of the Internet allegations that have reason for the police actions, tints too dark, driving wrong way down a one way street have been shown to be incorrect. Williams denies the car was on the wrong side of the road. And. The police have apologised. I am not saying that the couple are innocent, that the incident was racially motivated, even that they deserve an apology, but to blindly pit faith in one side on the evidence of a heavily cut video, that frankly does not look great, is blind faith of the highest order. I will follow this with interest as one, or perhaps both of the parties are going to look rather foolish when all evidence is collated and presented

Cressida Dick herself said she's reviewed all the video evidence and there was no misconduct.

Therefore apologising sends out the wrong message.

This is one of the things I struggle with man. I hate the binary world we live in, but an apology shoukd be binary surely. You either aplogise in good faith and take responsibilty, or you stand by your guys. A political appeasement merely sets a precedent and provides a rod to be beaten with. So, what's what?