Bianca Williams stop accusing race motivated.

[anonymous-user]

biggbn said:

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.

She's apologising for the distress.

That's a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do when it turns out a person hasn't done anything wrong.

She's not apologising for the stop and actions, is she?

[biggbn]

La Liga said:

biggbn said:

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.

She's apologising for the distress.

That's a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do when it turns out a person hasn't done anything wrong.

She's not apologising for the stop and actions, is she?

See my earlier post, the actions subsequent to the stop are intrinsically linked to the upset, one cannot spectate them. If you are apologising for the distress caused, you must be apologising for causing the distress? It all seems rather sudden and strange.

[Zoon]

biggbn said:

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

Had she calmly complied with the instructions without becoming hysterical I do not believe she'd have been handcuffed.

[bstb3]

Paraphrasing but "we didn't do anything wrong in stopping you, but I am sorry that you found it upsetting"

Seems perfectly possible to apologize for the upset, but without meaning the original action was wrong.

Storm teacup springs to mind re this apology.

[Kent Border Kenny]

wjb said:

I've been stopped well over 50 times mate.

Does it happen more frequently in the Mitsubishi?

[A Winner Is You]

Greendubber said:

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.

Most likely under pressure from the Mayor

[anonymous-user]

biggbn said:

La Liga said:

biggbn said:

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.

She's apologising for the distress.

That's a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do when it turns out a person hasn't done anything wrong.

She's not apologising for the stop and actions, is she?

See my earlier post, the actions subsequent to the stop are intrinsically linked to the upset, one cannot spectate them. If you are apologising for the distress caused, you must be apologising for causing the distress? It all seems rather sudden and strange.

Of course the cause of the effect are the police actions. Hence the apology.

The off-duty doctor who relocated my mate's shoulder when he dislocated it playing rugby apologised for the pain he was about to cause.

I'd be surprised if the Met's PSD got their conclusion wrong, especially given how quickly they acted upon it. I fully expect Dick has been briefed on the matter and is not setting herself up for a surprise when the IOPC look at it. Which they may not do, of course.

[biggbn]

Zoon said:

biggbn said:

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

Had she calmly complied with the instructions without becoming hysterical I do not believe she'd have been handcuffed.

So why has Dick suggested this incident prompt a review of handcuffing procedure? I agree with your above assertion and said as much in the post you quoted. Neither party has come out of this looking shiny and clean. I do not understand the rationale behind todays aplogy for the distress called IF the handcuffing was above board and there was no misconduct by any officers. There is no disconnect between the officers behaviour and the subsequent upset. Hell, I have been arrested several times, once or twice it wasnt nice and I was a bit upset, although I don't think there was any malpractice, it just wasn't very nice. Am I due an apology?

[anonymous-user]

biggbn said:

So why has Dick suggested this incident prompt a review of handcuffing procedure? I agree with your above assertion and said as much in the post you quoted. Neither party has come out of this looking shiny and clean. I do not understand the rationale behind todays aplogy for the distress called IF the handcuffing was above board and there was no misconduct by any officers. There is no disconnect between the officers behaviour and the subsequent upset. Hell, I have been arrested several times, once or twice it wasnt nice and I was a bit upset, although I don't think there was any malpractice, it just wasn't very nice. Am I due an apology?

Because it's perfectly normal to apologise for putting someone through an unpleasant experience (when it turns out they've done nothing wrong) even if putting them through the experience is the right thing to do.

[philv]

I am of the opinion that one should do as instructed by the police.

You may not agree with the police but you do as they say.

If you don't do so, you aren't helping yourself.

If they or anyone else fails to stop when they know they should, can only blame tnemselvrs.

[mmm-five]

biggbn said:

So why has Dick suggested this incident prompt a review of handcuffing procedure?

Because it's the political thing to do.

She can have (or just suggest) the review - to appease the baying mob (on both sides of the argument) - and then announce months later that the review found the current system is fine!

[Earthdweller]

Weak and indecisive leadership leads to weak and indecisive policing

Those criminals within ethnic communities will be emboldened and the officers dealing with them on the street undermined

I’d really not be surprised if street cops on seeing someone of a visible BAME group committing an offence turn a blind eye and ignore it

We are only a few steps away from complete lawlessness and an enfeebled and impotent Police force

The argument could then be said that being stopped because you are non BAME is then racial profiling as officers will feel secure in their jobs prosecuting non BAME offenders

It is a very dangerous and slippery path the Met are taking

Remember the words of Sir Robert Peel

To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

[biggbn]

La Liga said:

biggbn said:

So why has Dick suggested this incident prompt a review of handcuffing procedure? I agree with your above assertion and said as much in the post you quoted. Neither party has come out of this looking shiny and clean. I do not understand the rationale behind todays aplogy for the distress called IF the handcuffing was above board and there was no misconduct by any officers. There is no disconnect between the officers behaviour and the subsequent upset. Hell, I have been arrested several times, once or twice it wasnt nice and I was a bit upset, although I don't think there was any malpractice, it just wasn't very nice. Am I due an apology?

Because it's perfectly normal to apologise for putting someone through an unpleasant experience (when it turns out they've done nothing wrong) even if putting them through the experience is the right thing to do.

Thanks for that, something to think about. I guess you are right. I have run pub and nightclub doors from the front line for the last 34 years, and yes, i have often used the 'im sorry you are upset' line with a customer who has been refused or ejected, however, thats part of managing the conflict and moving the problem away. Had a customer returned the next day or emailed and demanded an apology, I woukd review the situation and if an apology was required, it would be forthcoming, but if not, they can review the footage themselves or get the police invloved, im not going to issue a public, and embarrassing apology to someone who doesn't deserve it. Which suggests, again, two things . Dick's apology IS a Dick's apology, a political weasel move...or she felt an apology was necessary.

Jeez, its difficult, its all down to words and wording I guess and I take yiur point fully. Dick damned if she did, damned if she didn't i guess, thankless job.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

Greendubber said:

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.

I suppose shes apologising for the distress and
not the stop though which is important to remember.

Edited by Greendubber on Wednesday 8th July 12:00

I’m guessing the apology is to try and stop protests/tv grabs about police brutality towards black people fleeing the police starting off again?

[Red 4]

Zoon said:

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?

Dick is apologising for any distress caused but not apologising for the officers' actions.

Big difference.

[DeWar]

biggbn said:

Thanks for that, something to think about. I guess you are right. I have run pub and nightclub doors from the front line for the last 34 years, and yes, i have often used the 'im sorry you are upset' line with a customer who has been refused or ejected, however, thats part of managing the conflict and moving the problem away. Had a customer returned the next day or emailed and demanded an apology, I woukd review the situation and if an apology was required, it would be forthcoming, but if not, they can review the footage themselves or get the police invloved, im not going to issue a public, and embarrassing apology to someone who doesn't deserve it. Which suggests, again, two things . Dick's apology IS a Dick's apology, a political weasel move...or she felt an apology was necessary.

Jeez, its difficult, its all down to words and wording I guess and I take yiur point fully. Dick damned if she did, damned if she didn't i guess, thankless job.

I have also been in the position of issuing such “sorry not sorry” apologies. Complaints are par for the course in certain lines of work and, in my experience they are both deeply unpleasant and massively time consuming to deal with and that’s if I haven’t done anything wrong. I can’t imagine how it feels to be wrongly accused (whether or not that’s the case here, I know not due to the full facts not being independently verified) in a case that makes the national news.

In such scenarios, you generally just want to make the problem go away as fast as possible and an apology is often a way of doing that - though in this case it seems that’s not going to happen. Annoyingly, issuing the “I’m sorry you feel that way” apology does occasionally have the opposite effect of winding the complainant up even more.

[don'tbesilly]

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.

What led to the distress?

It strikes me that the apology has come from the wrong party.

Perhaps de Santos should be the one apologising to his wife for driving in the manner he did, the driving that led to the request to stop, and de Santos then doing exactly the opposite and speeding off.

Once he (de Santos) did stop he then refused to get out of the car, his wife then did similar probably due to the example set by the husband, so the bad situation caused by de Santos originally (speeding away) was then exacerbated further, which led to the action by the Police (getting the couple to comply with the request to get out of the car) which the Police are now apologising for.

To cap it all the apology from Dick (such an apt name given the circumstances) will probably lead to a compensation claim, as the apology from Dick could be seen as a tacit acceptance by the Met that the whole scenario was their (Mets) fault when if de Santos had complied from the get-go none of this would have happened and his wife would not have experienced the distress.

Slippery slope,from the Beeb article:

"I think all of us watching could empathise with somebody who is stopped in a vehicle, who has a young child in the back, who does not probably know what exactly is going on, and is subsequently found, together with her partner, not to be carrying anything illicit."

I can see 'baby on board' stickers enjoying an explosion in sales in the very near future.

[R Mutt]

What happens the next time someone is pulled over and with this incident in mind treats the police with contempt, escalating the situation?

Of course the police should be held to higher standards, except this seems a bit one-sided when you tell people they don't need to obey them. Because that's the message given by the apology for cuffing someone who didn't stop for the police, and by those who place the blame firmly on the police here.

Edited by R Mutt on Wednesday 8th July 13:33

[Bigends]

Perhaps the fact she was left in cuffs for the duration of the search ( over half an hour) may have been an issue.

[Earthdweller]

Red 4 said:

Dick is apologising for any distress caused but not apologising for the officers' actions.

Big difference.

It matters not what she says, and we haven’t seen a transcript

What is Important is how it is reported and not the nuance of the wording

A quick scan online brings up headlines such as

“Met chief apologises for officers racially profiling athletes” etc

That is what people will read and take from the apology not “we acted professionally sorry you got upset”

She may well have opened an even bigger can of worms