"Hundreds" of Met Police armed response officers hand in the weapons after colleague charged with murder - Chris Kaba Shooting aftermath.

[Resident]

But a whole load more time and taxpayer money gets wasted on it all because this guy can't accept any personal responsibility for his actions and instead uses this as a race-grift to get attention, sympathy etc.

It's time there was a law brought in to combat false race allegations. Maybe a year inside for falsely accusing someone of racial aggravation rather than just dismissing that part of the case

They. both sound like a complete nightmare but of course they'll still kick-off, it's someone else's fault never their own.

She was given an additional 18 points which means she had 11 already. I'm fairly confident that she only had 11 because she's used the hardship angle in a previous trip to court for her 'driving'.

I've always been a proponent of 12 points means 12 points. Judges need to get behind that thought.

According to DVLA figures from 2021 (only ones freely available online), over 8,200 drivers are still on the road despite having more than 12 points on their licence. 51 of those have 28 points or more with one driver having 68 points.

Spoiler: Breakdown of the 51

68 points: 1 driver

66 points: 1 driver

63 points: 1 driver

60 points: 2 drivers

51 points: 2 drivers

48 points: 1 driver

45 points: 1 driver

42 points: 3 drivers

39 points: 2 drivers

38 points: 1 driver

36 points: 5 drivers

35 points: 1 driver

34 points: 1 driver

33 points: 4 drivers

32 points: 2 drivers

31 points: 3 drivers

30 points: 15 drivers

29 points: 2 drivers

28 points: 3 drivers

 

[Stretch]

They didn't need to dress it up. As pointed out other officers also smelled weed. This was accepted by the court. Hence why the dismissal has been overturned as inconsistent and irrational.

And the weapons?

I think writing it off as ”inconsistent” isn’t good enough. If they were either all lying or none of them were we need to know which based on the evidence available to the public.

Personally I would like to be very sure the police aren’t able to fabricate reasons to stop and search.

 

[TheVoice]

If people are getting their news from headlines only, then I despair.

Unfortunately you need only look at the replies to tweets and Facebook posts from any news outlets to see that many, many people don't read past the tweet/post/headline and will form an opinion (or parrot one they've already seen) based on that alone.

 

[dowie]

I think writing it off as ”inconsistent” isn’t good enough. If they were either all lying or none of them were we need to know which based on the evidence available to the public.

Again you're making flawed assumptions - why is that either or? Maybe some thought they smelt weed and others didn't.

Inconsistent isn't good enough? But sometimes things are inconsistent.

 

[Stretch]

Again you're making flawed asusmptions - why that either or? Maybe some thought they smelt weed and others didn't.

The basis of the latest decision seems to be that it was inconsistent to believe that two had lied about smelling the weed but the other two hadn't. Which heavily implies that they all claimed to have smelt weed.

 

[Dis86]

And the weapons?

I think writing it off as ”inconsistent” isn’t good enough. If they were either all lying or none of them were we need to know which based on the evidence available to the public.

Personally I would like to be very sure the police aren’t able to fabricate reasons to stop and search.

Or perception is different for different people? I have literally no sense of smell right now. You probably do. Ergo, different levels of perception.

 

[GreatAuk]

And the weapons?

I think writing it off as ”inconsistent” isn’t good enough. If they were either all lying or none of them were we need to know which based on the evidence available to the public.

Personally I would like to be very sure the police aren’t able to fabricate reasons to stop and search.

I don't think they ever said they saw weapons, just that one of the reasons the police were in the area was an uptick in armed crime, so having seen the car drive suspiciously and take off, one of the things they'd suspect would be that there might be drugs or weapons involved.

 

[Stretch]

I don't think they ever said they saw weapons, just that one of the reasons the police were in the area was an uptick in armed crime, so having seen the car drive suspiciously and take off, one of the things they'd suspect would be that there might be drugs or weapons involved.

Becuase most traffic offences involve drugs and/or weapons?

 

[Dis86]

Becuase most traffic offences involve drugs and/or weapons?

Most don't have to. That's not how reasonable suspicion works. Making off from police would certainly be suspicious though, it's not what innocent people tend to do for minor traffic offences.

 

[dowie]

The basis of the latest decision seems to be that it was inconsistent to believe that two had lied about smelling the weed but the other two hadn't. Which heavily implies that they all claimed to have smelt weed.

The BBC reporting only mentions one other having smelled weed, but yes the original ruling would be inconsistent too in that case.

 

[GreatAuk]

Becuase most traffic offences involve drugs and/or weapons?

I doubt it, but if you're driving badly and appear to be trying to shake police off your tail it seems reasonable to suspect that something untoward might be going on to me, especially given the concerns in that area.

 

[Stretch]

The BBC reporting only mentions one other having smelled weed, but yes the original ruling would be inconsistent too in that case.

Right. But this ruling has said that to address the inconsistency they will assume they were all telling the truth about smelling weed rather than they all lied.

On what basis?

 

[Hagar]

So what would a civil case do to cure hurt feelings? It won't get the officers sacked again, is it just money?

 

[dowie]

Right. But this ruling has said that to address the inconsistency they will assume they were all telling the truth about smelling weed rather than they all lied.

On what basis?

FML on what basis can anyone say they lied in the first place?

 

[Dis86]

FML on what basis can anyone say they lied in the first place?

It's almost like stating so was inconsistent and irrational!

 

[Stretch]

FML on what basis can anyone say they lied in the first place?

The first case found there was a basis, so much so they were fired. The second case only looked for inconsistencies, which at best seems like a technicality. Unless they can provide a more evidence based justification, which is really what I’d like to see.

The summery from the judge saying how he’s a great chap who’s well respected just smacks of him wanting to give them a free pass.

Many “well respected” police officers are *****.

 

[Brazo]

So if the officers didn’t lie does that mean the couple were guilty of carrying drugs and the officers made a valid stop?

 

[Gepetto]

And the weapons?

Weapons? I didn't realise weapons were mentioned. Do you have a link?

 

[Dis86]

So if the officers didn’t lie does that mean the couple were guilty of carrying drugs and the officers made a valid stop?

No. It means there was another source of the smell.

 

[Stretch]

Weapons? I didn't realise weapons were mentioned. Do you have a link?

Met Police officers sacked over athlete stop and search handed jobs back after winning appeal

Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos complained to the police watchdog that they were racially profiled during a "disturbing" stop and search in 2020.

news.sky.com

The couple were handcuffed and searched on suspicion of having drugs and weapons after they were pulled over outside their property.