Team GB sprinter accuses police of racial profiling after being stopped by police.

Watch
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
https://news.sky.com/story/team-gb-s...-stop-12022003

Bianca Williams was stopped in Madia vale with her partner, Ricardo Dos Santos, and their son on Saturday

Williams told the Times that Dos Santos is always stopped and was spoken to like he was scum. Footage of the incident was posted on Twitter by Lindford Christie showing 2 people being dragged from the car with the female becoming increasingly distressed about her son who is still in the car. Christie stated in Twitter was it suspicious that a black family was driving around in a car? Or a smell of cannabis

The met police have claimed the car was being seen driving suspicously on the wrong side of the road, something not denied by Williams
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
It is almost certain that it was racial profiling, the met are institutionally racist despite what Commissioner **** says.

Smelling cannabis is just as easy excuse the police use to justify illegal stops.

The Met investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? Shocker.
2
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#3
For reference here is the statement from the Metropolitan police. http://news.met.police.uk/news/state...da-vale-407023

And a video of the incident

https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/s...11091896987649
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by DiddyDec)
It is almost certain that it was racial profiling, the met are institutionally racist despite what Commissioner **** says.

Smelling cannabis is just as easy excuse the police use to justify illegal stops.

The Met investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? Shocker.
I doubt smelling cannabis was the reason for the original stop, since you can’t really smell it when in a different car. If what the police say was true about the way the car was being driven then pulling over was correct. Not the behaviour after however.
4
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Andrew97)
I doubt smelling cannabis was the reason for the original stop, since you can’t really smell it when in a different car. If what the police say was true about the way the car was being driven then pulling over was correct. Not the behaviour after however.
Am I correct in saying that he was asked to leave the car by police officers and refused?
0
reply
Hudds999
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
If anyone was driving on the wrong side of the road then they deserve to get pulled over, black, white, purple whatever. Are we really going to get to a point where the police are too scared to pull over and stop and search black people due to the fear of being called racist and ‘racial profiling’.
8
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Hudds999)
If anyone was driving on the wrong side of the road then they deserve to get pulled over, black, white, purple whatever. Are we really going to get to a point where the police are too scared to pull over and stop and search black people due to the fear of being called racist and ‘racial profiling’.
This is happening already, we are already past that point.
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Andrew97)
I doubt smelling cannabis was the reason for the original stop, since you can’t really smell it when in a different car. If what the police say was true about the way the car was being driven then pulling over was correct. Not the behaviour after however.
You would be amazed at what police can allegedly smell from a distance, how do you think they could smell cannabis during the stop when no cannabis was present?

I don't believe anything the police say until evidence is provided, if they have bodycam footage then they can release it.

0
reply
Hudds999
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
This is happening already, we are already past that point.
Imma just leave this here. Dangerous territory we’re walking into again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RaheemKas...35314789154817
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
That's very different to my experiences of being pulled over in a car that actually stunk of cannabis, all i've ever got was a gentle ribbing and a few jokes about the bong on the back seat.
1
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Hudds999)
Imma just leave this here. Dangerous territory we’re walking into again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RaheemKas...35314789154817
It’s a sign of things to come unfortunately.
0
reply
RedGiant
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by DiddyDec)
It is almost certain that it was racial profiling, the met are institutionally racist despite what Commissioner **** says.

Smelling cannabis is just as easy excuse the police use to justify illegal stops.

The Met investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? Shocker.
It wasn’t an illegal stop, section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows police to stop any vehicle for any/no reason. If this wasn’t true then random lay-by stops would be illegal. Section 165 then requires the driver to produce a name and address (“ID”). Refusing to give ID after driving a vehicle is an offence, which I suspect is what happened here.
Last edited by RedGiant; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by RedGiant)
It wasn’t an illegal stop, section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows police to stop any vehicle for any/no reason. If this wasn’t true then random lay-by stops would be illegal. Section 165 then requires the driver to produce a name and address (“ID”). Refusing to give ID after driving a vehicle is an offence, which I suspect is what happened here.
Don't you have 7 days?
0
reply
Exploding pigs
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
So your saying racial profiling doesn't happen. How about this article https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...ew-racismWhere he gets stopped twice in like 2 weeks for **** that they never found, oh does it not fit your agenda that racial profiling doesn't exist and nor does illegal stops.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by RedGiant)
It wasn’t an illegal stop, section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows police to stop any vehicle for any/no reason. If this wasn’t true then random lay-by stops would be illegal. Section 165 then requires the driver to produce a name and address (“ID”). Refusing to give ID after driving a vehicle is an offence, which I suspect is what happened here.
We don't actually know what law they were stopped under or what happened prior to the stop. All we have is what the police said which amounts to "driving suspiciously" with no evidence to prove that statement.
0
reply
Exploding pigs
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by DiddyDec)
We don't actually know what law they were stopped under or what happened prior to the stop. All we have is what the police said which amounts to "driving suspiciously" with no evidence to prove that statement.
The ticket they were given doesn't say that they made that up after the incident
0
reply
Exploding pigs
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
It’s a sign of things to come unfortunately.

How about this article where the guy been stopped twice in 2 weeks for having drugs when on both occasions nothing was found.
http//www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/04/police-smash-car-window-ryan-colaco-tv-interview-racism
Police make up enough things to justify illegal stop and searches
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Exploding pigs)
The ticket they were given doesn't say that they made that up after the incident
Colour me shocked, who would have thought that the police would make things up to justify their actions.

I look forward to them being sued.
0
reply
RedGiant
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by DiddyDec)
We don't actually know what law they were stopped under or what happened prior to the stop. All we have is what the police said which amounts to "driving suspiciously" with no evidence to prove that statement.
We definitely do know the law that they were stopped under - they were driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a highway, therefore it would fall under the Road Tract Act 1988. Driving suspiciously is a completely valid reason for stopping a vehicle, as is then subsequently requiring the driver's ID. Even though they don't actually need any reason to stop a vehicle and then require a name and address.

(Original post by the beer)
Don't you have 7 days?
Yes, usually they will give you a 'producer' so long as they don't believe that you're lying in saying that you have a valid DL/insurance/MOT. But you can also just say your name, address and DOB. If you outright refuse on the other hand and start saying things like "I don't have to, I haven't committed a crime" (which would be false as you are required to under 165) then that's different.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by RedGiant)
We definitely do know the law that they were stopped under - they were driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a highway, therefore it would fall under the Road Tract Act 1988. Driving suspiciously is a completely valid reason for stopping a vehicle, as is then subsequently requiring the driver's ID. Even though they don't actually need any reason to stop a vehicle and then require a name and address.
The Times report tells a different story.

"They were on their way back from training on Saturday when they were pulled from their car for a weapons search."

"The Met said that a vehicle with “blacked-out windows” made off “at speed” on the wrong side of the road. The road is a single car width and the couple said that a written report given to them by police did not mention them driving on the wrong side."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...stop-chc2l9nc3
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (76)
40.64%
Take autumn exams (61)
32.62%
Look for a job (5)
2.67%
Consider an apprenticeship (6)
3.21%
Take a year out (27)
14.44%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (12)
6.42%

Watched Threads

View All