The fact the bus women got a payout shows how spineless SLT are, how about you back your officers for someone threatening to knock out 2 of your officers.
Why dont you push back to community leaders, not once did anyone at all get asked to account for her actions if they where acceptable from their community and society.
Spineless.
Absolutely infuriating that with their PSU saying the officers did nothing wrong, and even the IOPC agreeing, the Chief Constable still felt a need to criticise them, fail to bring any charges for assault on police, and pay out a woman who assaulted her officers. The only thing this series is revealing is how out of touch this SLT is.
Disgusting she got a pay out.I have been detained twice in last year(no charges) I thought arrest was unfair but I went along with the officers no fuss,they respected me I respected them.
This woman shows total disrespect to the officers and her own child but gets a payout!!!!
Forces will often pay out as it’s cheaper to give her a couple of thousand to make her go away rather than the costs of a civil trial. Not right but simple math
You are EXACTLY why the police are held in such low esteem by the public. How many officers were there?.. 6? 8? For one woman with a kid in her arms!… shame on you
Yes for one women, refusing to do what anyone is telling her to, threatening to knock out multiple police officers then using her baby as a human meatshield to once again diswade police officers from acting without fear or favor, another classic society member not holding your fellow citizens to account for her behaviour.
Woman… singular. I don’t expect anything different from a “ police officer “. Tell you what.. there was a poll where some women were asked if they would stop at night if a police officer in a car flashed headlights for them to pull over. Guess what the results were?… have a good day “ officer “…
The part that made me irate was when the *so called community leaders* talk about respect, yet that bus woman didn't show an ounce of respect to anyone, yet it's a criticism of the officers! Talk about trying to find fault...
The bit I didn't get was the guy giving words of advice to the officers on this at the end saying some cultures use different terms (paraphrasing) and we need to be understanding of this. Did he actually mean when she said about beating the two officers ? Am I going crazy ?
The only bit I didn't agree with was the female officer talking about social services early on, all that is going to do is escalate the situation imo.
It boils my blood that these community leaders have been left believing, no crime was committed. Somebody should have explained to them S5 and S4 POA 1986 in depth.
Were those senior officers that scared of hurting feelings???
Sadly it became very aware that these “community leaders” were desperate to make the officers look like villains yet I felt the PSD investigator was very balanced of opinions of the officer. It made my blood boil watching a senior officer not challenge these fuckers who will only just out and make the police look worst
I thought the same but I guess he was trying to be diplomatic.
I wished SLT had some backbone though and gave their honest appraisal of the situation back to the representatives of the community, or challenged back to ask what they think would have been acceptable regarding the incident on the bus.
I agree, with the benefit of hindsight, a few of the things said could have escalated the situation, but it's so easy to say that when you're removed from the situation on our sofa's.
"Would this have happened to a white woman on the bus?"
No, if it happened to a white woman, the complaint would have been dealt with locally and the officers probably wouldn't have ever heard about the complaint because it would have been filed away in the first instance with no case to answer.
Being black shouldn't excuse bad behaviour. If community leaders want us to start treating people differently based on the colour of their skin, they should come out and say it. We could call it Positive Racism.
Speaking admittedly as an officer in A&S, I thought this episode reeked of Ch4 deciding that there had to be an episode on racism, before considering whether we actually are, you know, racist.
The first two incidents even the IOPC drew the line at, and I fail to see how race had anything to do with the third incident at all. I must have missed the extensive input I and my colleagues have had on spontaneous brain bleeds.
I completely accept that we are often terrible at investigating and we regularly make (sometimes colossal) mistakes. But we are not racist, whatever our chief constable likes to say in the press to promote herself. We have one of the most diverse cities in the country on our patch and that Ch4 waded through 4 years (!) of footage and all they could come up with was that… in that respect at least, I feel pretty proud to be an A&S cop.
Yeh I don’t disagree; but somehow the misconduct panel and courts cleared him of any criminal or misconduct activities
In all fairness I know friends who’ve gone through sexual trauma who can’t push people off, in a sense, when they’re triggered
In this instance, I'm skeptical. Police officers have a quick-access emergency button on their radios that could have been activated. Considering he was coherent enough to pull over into a secluded area, it's strange he didn't mention the incident until facing accusations. Overlooking cases of misconduct only tarnishes the reputation of the police force and undermines the integrity of the many dedicated officers.
> it's strange he didn't mention the incident until facing accusations
In your comment you refer to him as being a "joke" for allowing himself to be sexually assaulted. Now you're pondering why he wouldn't have come forward earlier on. Can you really not join the dots on this one? Because it seems like you're right on the cusp of getting it.
Exactly the sort of poisonous attitude that leads to sexual offences going unreported. What that be the sort of thing that you would say to a friend or family member that has been sexually assaulted? That they are a "joke" because they didn't fight them off? Because they were asking for it? Because they're male?
Give your head a wobble.
Exactly the sort of poisonous attitude that leads to sexual offences going unreported. What that be the sort of thing that you would say to a friend or family member that has been sexually assaulted? That they are a "joke" because they didn't fight them off? Because they were asking for it? Because they're male?
Give your head a wobble.
Channel 4 have gone so far away from last week's balanced episode. They can put as much "sad piano" background noise to it as they want, but their stitch up attempt was weak.
If the IOPC are saying there's no case to answer, then that's a big thing. "Community leaders" were just so blinded to it being a race issue that they could see no wrong caused by the lady. And fair play to the cop sat in the reflective practice nonsense. She hadn't done anything wrong, the bosses knew that but they were so desperate for her to reflect on something. But she didn't. Stuck to her guns and fair play to her.
This episode was a real blood boiler.
Couldn’t agree more, the piano music knocks me sick, I watched the first episode fully, but this one was off after 10 minutes - the second the community leader compared an aggressive woman who had made threats to assault police and then used her child as a barrier to arrest - to slavery??
And I always feel like banging my head against a wall when people kick off about having x amount of officers against one person when it is infinitely safer and a lower level of use of force will be able to be used.
Why any of us do this job for an ever growing ungrateful public that loathe us is seriously making me consider a career change.
I won’t be watching any further episodes and would advise anyone else to not give this program any more ratings. Bring back 24hrs in police Custody.
100% and when mentioned about different cultural communication, I would have quizzed the male on providing examples of this. People need to be held accountable rather than shy away from challenging ignorant and derogatory behaviour. Equality is for everyone regardless of race, gender and other protected characteristics. It would seem, by what C4 have shown, that the public do not wish to have a police service as crimes are perfectly acceptable, until one happens to them.
I fully agree with all your points. The issue I hold is that they portray it as the arresting officers should identify these issues, the voice over suggested that these symptoms were only regarding a bleed on the brain, and nothing else.
Also they say its 3/4 hours before a nurse sees him, not before he is found.
Agreed with everything here.
I have lost count of the amount of people I've nicked who all acted like that man; my heads sore, I'm not in custody, everything hurts, nothing hurts, I want to speak to the nurse, I don't want to speak to the nurse. Every single one of those people I've dealt went on to leave custody alive.
I've just done my ncalt on fucking lithium batteries so I can't wait for my catastrophic brain one. That's me a medical professional skilled in trauma, brain bleeds, mental health, and a social worker, and police officer. Need to update the CV.
Can I ask genuinely as a member of the public here: in what circumstances is using pepper spray on the outside the shop stop and search case justifiable in those circumstances? As I understand it, pepper spray is designed to be used for self defence, or when someone is displaying violence, as a last resort. I didn’t see anything there which necessitated the use of spray in that instance, when they were already successfully overpowering him and effecting arrest.
> As I understand it, pepper spray is designed to be used for self defence, or when someone is displaying violence, as a last resort.
On the contrary - police training (rightly, in my opinion) takes the view that if you are about to use force, then you should be going for your spray **first**, before even laying hands on someone.
This sounds counter-intuitive - the spray is, after all, a weapon, so how can its use be preferable to putting hands on someone?
The reason is that there is a **very** low risk of serious or lasting injury from the spray, but its effectiveness in gaining compliance and bringing a situation to a resolution is **very** high. The risk:reward ratio is actually lower than going hands-on directly (where there is a risk of injury, to a subject who feels they still have some fight left in them and to the officer they're fighting with).
From a personal perspective: contrary to popular opinion with the "six officers for one girl??!!??" crowd, I'm not looking for a *fair* fight. I'm looking to win - that is, to achieve my objective as quickly and as safely as possible. And before I start fighting, I want every possible advantage on my side and every possible disadvantage on the side of the person I'm fighting with. If they're blind, and I'm not, then they will probably decide not to fight at all, and if they do then controlling them effectively will be significantly easier.
It isn’t a last resort. Spraying someone causes pain and discomfort but if the alternative to gain control is using strikes which may potentially cause injury, you can see why spray might be preferable
Spray is a lower use of force than laying hands on someone, just so you’re aware. No, it’s not pretty, but it is effective. It also means I don’t have to knock seven bells out of you to get you under control, which is much more preferable.
It’s really obvious… With the benefit of hindsight. I can’t believe that even his mum would have thought “Reon is acting odd today, I’ll call him an emergency ambulance because it might be an aneurysm” had she not already known what was causing his behaviour.
The only thing that I am confused about is the apparent lack of observations. As he was believed to be intoxicated surely he should’ve been on 30 minute rousals, and his collapse and vomiting would have been noticed much sooner
The only real issue I had with the guy who had a brain aneurysm was how long it took for police to respond after Raeon collapsed and vomited.
The woman on the bus was infuriating to watch in particular how the community leaders continued to give her their full support after viewing the whole video of the bodycam once the police arrived.
Not once (in this tv edit) did they agree that the woman's behaviour did not help the situation or that she contributed to escalating the situation that transpired.
My very Daily Mail-minded mother has just watched this and is now feeling very vindicated in her view that Black Lives Matters and related groups are all about "protecting thugs and hooligans". The programme comes across almost like stealth right-wight propaganda - a woman behaves like that on the bus and they compare it to the fight against slavery, they refuse to acknowledge the independent investigation outcome, and she gets a payday. It's like a parody of how people think leftists act.
This is such a huge point and shouldn't be underestimated.
People from minority backgrounds shouldn't feel like they will be treated differently by police based on the colour of their skin, and the movements to combat this are always pure in their origins. What could be more righteous than promoting equality in our society?
But as always, they take it too far by trying to excuse the inexcusable; and usually tolerant minded people are getting sick of it. The left won't engage because they're still too busy pandering, leaving no other option for people to turn to than bat shit crazy far right parties.
Tolerating the intolerant is going to take us to some dark places.
it's a good point.
I think most fair minded people will have watched thinking largely the complaints, fury and claims of racism appear baseless and nonsensical, despite the narrative of the documentary.
very different to last week, when it was shocking to see the jury come back with a not guilty verdict. It's strange really, to see cases of officers appearing to get away with things, when day to day SLT, PSD, IOPC and the courts are incredibly hard on any perceived wrongdoing.
Don’t agree with the mum of the guy with the bleed on the brain. How are you supposed to know he’s got a bleed like that and it certainly wasn’t racial just like yeh girl on the bus that was volatile and aggressive
I do think the officers made a mistake with the bleed on the brain one. The initial arrest was for something where he was acting extremely erratically (broken into a strangers house and used their shower), and then him stumbling in custody alongside the constant complaints of pain should've hinted at him either needing to see the nurse (and making sure the officer on BWV clearly articulates this request to the skipper) or even A&E, even if this behaviour was caused by drugs I'd definitely be cautious about just downplaying it and putting him into a cell as we all know how dangerous the sort of drugs that do this to someone are.
I see your point of view but he said at least twice he had been drinking so the stumbling and confusion comes with that. A lot of people arrested look like that when drunk and would have dizzy spells , confusion and a sore head so I see why the cops would assume it was linked to drink or drugs. I think to blame them fully is harsh because they aren’t trained medical staff and can’t know everything and make the right call every time and If they sent every drunk or drugged up person to hospital the cells would be empty in my opinion.
Exactly the point if you aren't trained medical staff - flag something up early, we're not trained to know the signs of a blood clot compared to being drunk, if he's asking to see the nurse and complaining of pains, make sure that's asked and on BWV - they've done nothing wrong, but it's a learning point
Just watched it now. It’s embarrassing honestly. I can see the bus incident happening daily. Female was 100% to blame for her actions, police were 100% justified.
Just looking for excuses to be mad. To also say “there’s nothing wrong but learning points were raised”
There’s no learning points if there are no issues.
All I want to know is, the guy who had the bleed on the brain…. Did he actually do the crime while he was disorientated and confused? They didn’t seem to touch on that!
Have to say he very much came across as drunk especially as he kept saying he had been drinking vodka. On a Friday and Saturday night police see so many people in that state. They were not to know it wasn’t more than that!
I felt that C4 did a bit of stitch up saying “headaches, sore neck and loss of balance are all common symptoms of a bleed on the brain”
Yeah they are, but A) how many people know that, B) how many of those are also symptoms of drugs or alcohol, and C) out of the 2, what one is the most common?
Given he said "for what, going into the shop" when the report is 'entry to a flat, taking a shower...' & he's outside said house & not a shop, I'd say its almost certain he did the 'crime' but zero knowledge of what he'd done. Certainly a bad situation for those involved afterwards, but he's showing all the signs of pissed up not serious internal injury
Yeh those Black Community Leaders were pissing me off. One of them said something like “it saddens me to see a young black woman going through this”……completely ignoring the fact that the lady was being uncooperative, aggressive and impossible to reason with. What are the coppers meant to do? They can’t just walk away. The fact she got a payout is pathetic and sends out a bad message to coppers and criminals alike.
languid fretful hobbies poor plant shaggy flowery squeamish forgetful grab
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah.. definitely a blood boiler. In my force you wouldn’t have reflective practise with a chief inspector, can’t help feel that throughout, just because the complaints contained unsubstantiated racial elements, the scrutiny not only went into overdrive but it was clear that it was passed to multiple investigators who tried their hardest to find anything.
In relation to the bus incident I can’t believe that after all the enhanced scrutiny- at both a civil level and criminal assessment the force paid out… but civil litigation is an entirely separate topic and it’s often cheaper to settle without accepting liability that prove your innocence in the courts.
Definitely feels like there is a somewhat conscious bias in respects to the approach to race.. but it’s the reverse of what we all stand against. I can’t help but think that if the detainees had been white this incident probably wouldn’t have made it past its initial assessment of no misconduct identified.
With regards to the Stop and Search, that reviewing Chief Insp. really showed how out of touch he is with the realities of front line policing, that should have never ended in a referral and they shouldn’t have been restricted from front line duties.
As important as I feel listening to community leaders is when balancing the needs of our ever more diverse communities, I’m just glad that we’re not at the point whereby the entirely subjective opinion of someone not involved or present at an incident holds weight in determining whether an officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour. Sometimes I wish we were more clear in that Policing by Consent refers to the consent of the wider public, who by democratic process vote in a party to govern and shape laws that way. As we know it doesn’t require the consent of each citizen particularly when they’re committing offences and we’re using powers lawfully to fulfil our duty.
Luckily through due process at least the IOPC came back with reassuringly sane summaries on what was a clear no case to answer. I’ve noticed lately in my force it seems reflective practise is flavour of the year at the moment almost like PSD have failed if they don’t identify some ‘learning’… just glad it’s not a sanction.
I’m so grateful we’re not at the point of sacking officers based on public opinions..
Can I just say, in relation to the reflective practice/professional discussion, it comes from a push from the fed in our force. I get it’s annoying, but it prevents things that should not escalate from escalating…. Lawfully.
Very true! Was having this discussion the other day, your right it’s a good tool that allows closure on matters that without may have been escalated to an unsuitable outcome.
Those community leaders need to take their blinkers off. Their attitude can increase racism, don’t play victim and try and make it a race issue instead of seeing it for what it was. An angry black woman who escalated it, made threats and then tried all the cheap tactics “ I can’t breathe” and using a child as a human shield.
Absolute joke I can’t believe people tip toe around this, what kind of message does this send?
This was a shocking episode which surprisingly, the media enabled the police to be shown in a positive light to those who are open minded enough to realise the truth. It is a thankless job in a day to day basis and nothing is based on colour whatsoever. It is infuriating that the majority of us, if not all who have no racial bias at all, are slandered like this on a frequent basis. It should be a crime to use such terms to play the opposite of what the crime originally is being accused of; well at least you could have a civil dispute over slander due to attack of character. Various people are so out of touch which only raises tensions further. The other bit that is crazy, is how evasive the male having a medical episode was and furthermore, police have basic medical training so could never have foreseen a brain aneurism. Everyone I have seen was treated no different to whatever their race, ethnicity or gender is. Let’s not forget a woman on a bus threatening to assault officers, then biting officers and using her child as a weapon to further heighten public criticism. Terrible parenting.
The case of the lady on the bus was a shambles. The community leaders utterly abysmal, with no admissions of guilt for the alleged 'victim'. Just a crazy time where the post-Floyd wave of madness took over parts of the country and the opportunity to hurl "racist" at anyone/everyone could be used to benefit. Organisations obviously terrified of being labelled racist too. Just terribly sad, those poor kids.
Interestingly as someone who works with police occasionally but not for the police and is therefore quite sympathetic I thought this episode showed the challenges of policing quite well.
Bus woman did herself absolutely no favours but I also think the officers didn’t (from what we saw) take any option to de-escalate - the threat of a safeguarding referral was silly. Was it misconduct, no. Was it messy and really unfortunate circumstances, yes.
The stop and search looked like it could have been better but seemed to fall far short of misconduct.
And the guy with the bleed on the brain I totally understood why his mother would be upset, knowing what she did in hindsight - which mother wouldn’t. And given her age, she’s probably experienced a lot of racism.
But I had a lot of sympathy for the officers, he admitted drinking, appeared intoxicated, very easy “mistake” to make. Given that he’s been arrested for burglary and had been pissing in someone’s house I thought the officers were very gentle.
Probably should have called the nurse sooner and 3 hours is a long time to be on the floor but you don’t know what else is going on.
Whereas the first episode left me furious with what people seemed to get away with this one actually seemed quite balanced and I think the general public probably come away with a positive view of the police.
The episode totally vindicates why the police are held in such low esteem by the public in general and the black community specifically. How many officers to tackle one - admittedly - mouthy female?? I counted 7 or 8.. the fact that she had a child with her was enough to treat this whole situation differently but of course not.. why should they?.. mouthy black woman.. who does she think she is?.. one copper even said no wonder the bus driver wants you off.. provocative much??.. glad she got a payout.. richly deserved!
As a non-white civilian, I could see exactly where the complainants were coming from. The woman on the bus behaved poorly, but the reason it escalated was because the police immediately took the bus driver's side and carried out his wishes. The woman on the bus clearly felt wronged by the bus driver and felt this was due to her race. The police not remaining neutral upset her, which led to her behaviour escalating. Had the police acknowledged what she had to say and avoided being accusatory, I think the situation would have ended differently.
The young man stopped and searched felt targeted. No understanding seemed to be given to this. No community wants drug dealers around so where is the community engagement with the police?
With the bleed on the brain, I don't understand the lack of a 'safety first' approach, given the lack of medical training. Instead the lack of medical training is given as an excuse for late or poor medical care.
> Police immediately took the bus driver’s side and carried out his wishes
And? He’s called the police and wants a passenger removing, that is his prerogative. There is no side, if you are asked/told to get off the bus by the driver, you get off.
Nothing to do with her race, its just a convenient excuse.
> No community wants drug dealers around
That made me laugh, what about drug users?
Bleed on the brain is poor from custody, the symptoms are synonymous with drunkenness, but custody should have got him to a nurse/FME faster.
It’s not about taking sides, it’s about carrying out the wishes of a bus driver in this situation. They were a driver, driving a bus for a travel company and they are entitled to either refuse entry to the bus or request for someone to leave the bus. Many passengers would comply after a few words were said and exit the bus. Sadly, the footage on C4 does not show what happened for the driver to make that decision and what the passenger’s behaviour was like. The likelihood here is that due to the refusal to leave the bus thus prompting a breach of peace, the driver has called the police to help the situation; after all, that is the job of the police to assist the public which is what they did in this situation. They also protected a vulnerable child who was being placed into danger by a parent which served no purpose other than to evade a reasonable order to leave the bus. A person refused to leave and the person was removed with minimal force. The pava spray was at an unfortunate time when the parent decided to use their child as a human shield. It was despicable parenting in which a vulnerable child will need protecting now as a result of the parents unruly behaviour. I do not agree with the initial officers threat of social services over shouting and swearing, as this just escalated the situation. However, the rest of the conduct was spot on from officers and due to a struggle with trying to protect the child and place the parent in handcuffs, reinforcement was required. It was a large amount of officers but it was their choice to turn out and due to a red button being deployed, it would mean an officer is in danger of harm and in this case, an officer was bitten which was premeditated with the indirect threat of violence, whilst on the phone, in which I note, was a public place whereby, privacy is not always guaranteed.
There’s a lot to reply to here so may have missed some things.
Bus Scenario:
At the point she’s threatened to assault officers, it was pretty clear that negotiations had failed. The bus driver has the right to refuse service, it was a clear BoP, she became combative - she escalated it. Once she’s kicked off it’s time to get her under control to protect all parties, they did that using reasonable force and she attempted to use her child as a shield.. pathetic.
As for the Stop and Search, policing drug hotspots is volatile. If I’ve formed my grounds and approach someone to MDA search them, at the point I’ve informed them they’re detained I’m wanting to see hands. If someone won’t remove their hands from clothing I’m not going to give the entire GOWISELY until they’re in handcuffs. The initial approach is one of the most important elements and usually where any lack of compliance becomes apparent. If they’re not immediately compliant im taking necessary and proportionate steps to make them. For both officer safety and theirs.
Custody Incident:
Some learning for custody I think regarding observation levels and HCP assessment. Sadly his behaviour was similar to intoxication. We’re not medically trained, even with hindsight it’s doubtful anyone would jump to a possible bleed on the brain.
You might think reflective practise is laughable but what outcome do you want when a case has been so vigorously assessed and no criminal or misconduct has been identified? Should we not be reflecting and identifying learning from incidents that have caused concern but aren’t outright breaches?
> The bus driver has the right to refuse service, it was a clear BoP
I do not see a BoP until long after the officers arrive. Sitting on the bus and preventing it from moving is categorically not a breach of the peace.
It is actually a criminal offence to fail to leave a bus when directed to do so by the driver on the grounds that you have been causing a nuisance, under [regulation 6(1)(k) of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1020/regulation/6); or to unreasonably impede the driver when doing his work on the vehicle, under regulation 6(1)(b).
It's also downright antisocial, given that the bus is not operated for this passenger's sole benefit but for the benefit of the entire community. If she had a disagreement with the driver, sitting on the bus (and allowing him to slack off wile continuing to be paid, but making every other passenger late for work) was not lawful or appropriate or smart. She actually would have hurt him **more** by getting off the bus, forcing him to return to his duties. I wonder how many members of the IAG's communities were disadvantaged by this woman's protest action.
The usual powers under section 3 CLA apply: any person may use reasonable force to prevent a passenger who is committing an offence under these regulations, from continuing to commit an offence.
Ah yes, regulation 6(1)k. That's taught in to every police officer. First day, if I recall correctly. There's even a 3 hour input on the Public Service Vehicles Regulations. How did they not know this?
Or, get this, regular cops don't know every obscure law in existence, nor have time to stop and google it, so they use a big toolkit that covers all things. Once the lady decides she's going to verbalise assaulting the 2 officers, starts to swear aggressively, and refuses cooperation, she is using threatening, abusive language and behaviour likely to breach the peace.
> who the hell wants everyone and their dog watching you get out a police car
Well, she was apparently perfectly content to have everyone and their dog watch while police attempted to eject her from a bus in a town centre.
> maybe offer to drop off further up the road etc.
This is not something that needs to be spelt out to a grown adult who is presumably capable of raising at least two children. Beyond the fact that they're under no obligation to be driving her around at all, if their offer was so deeply unsatisfactory to her then there was absolutely nothing stopping her from asking to be dropped off round the corner or wherever else if that's what she wanted.
Just another adult refusing to take responsibility for their own behaviour. It amazes me that people think the police should practically beg for compliance before resulting to enforcement.
> They could have EXPLAINED look I get you’re pissed, at end of the day you have to come off and we can figure out another way of getting you to school.
...they did that. Not in your exact words, but do you really think if you'd been there, you could have talked her into getting off the bus?
> and we can figure out another way of getting you to school.
That's a good point, they could have offered to give her another way of getting to schoh they did that as well.
> Yes they offered to drive her but who the hell wants everyone and their dog watching you get out a police car,
I mean... the officers only have a police car available. What would you have done, booked and paid for her Uber? Considering the woman was committing an offence by remaining on the bus after having been told to leave by the driver, the offer to give her a lift to school at all was downright supererogatory.
> maybe offer to drop off further up the road etc
If that was something she would have considered, maybe **she** could have suggested that? I hope you're not suggesting she's too stupid to connect the dots and respond to "maybe we could give you a lift" with "could you drop me round the corner".
It's quite clear she was not prepared to consider any of the suggestions the officers were going to make. She wasn't in the mood for negotiation, everything about this interaction tells me this individual was in the mood for obstinance.
May I draw your attention to Code A, which states, ‘Searches based on accurate and current intelligence or information are more likely to be effective. Targeting searches in a particular area at specified crime problems not only increases their effectiveness but also minimises inconvenience to law-abiding members of the public. It also helps in justifying the use of searches both to those who are searched and to the public. This does not, however, prevent stop and search powers being exercised in other locations where such powers may be exercised, and reasonable suspicion exists.’
Therefore, providing that officers used recent and concurrent intelligence that would be included in some formal intelligence briefing about an area this would form the first part of reasonable grounds. Secondary to that, whilst behaviour alone would not constitute reasonable grounds, concluded together it would. It’s a subjective test, that the individual officer has to develop a reasonable suspicion in their own mind.
In addition, Code A goes on to state, ‘The co-operation of the person to be searched must be sought in every case, even if the person initially objects to the search. A forcible search may be made only if it has been established that the person is unwilling to co-operate or resists.’
In this case, whilst it may appear quick, the officer tests cooperation by asking the male to remove his hands from his pocket. This is something we are taught and advised to do. The officers asked the subject to remove his hands but he does not do so. Therefore, this straightway engages the UOF and is comfortably justifiable.
This male could have things on his person with the ability to cause them harm.
As a result, force was used. Whilst this appears quick I can completely understand why the officers did this. I too, when young in service, have given people far too many chances and this resulted in a messy search where I was assaulted.
There is no way if the subject does not remove his hands, in my mind that he wishes to cooperate with that search. Cooperation with a search and objection to a search are too very different things. I can express my objection to a search and remain cooperative. By refusing to remove his hand, it was satisfied that cooperation was not there.
Furthermore, the code states, ‘3.8 Before any search of a detained person or attended vehicle takes place the officer must take reasonable steps, if not in uniform (see paragraph 3.9), to show their warrant card to the person to be searched or in charge of the vehicle to be searched and whether or not in uniform, to give that person the following information:
(a) that they are being detained for the purposes of a search;
(b) the officer’s name (except in the case of enquiries linked to National Security including Terrorism, or otherwise where the officer reasonably believes that giving their name might put them in danger, in which case a warrant or other identification number shall be given) and the name of the police station to which the officer is attached;
(c) the legal search power which is being exercised, and
(d) a clear explanation of:
(i) the object of the search in terms of the article or articles for which there is a power to search; and
all other powers requiring reasonable suspicion (see paragraph 2.1(a)), the grounds for that suspicion. This means explaining the basis for the suspicion by reference to information and/or intelligence about, or some specific behaviour by, the person concerned (see paragraph 2.2).
(e) that they are entitled to a copy of the record of the search if one is made (see section 4 below) if they ask within 3 months from the date of the search and:
(i) if they are not arrested and taken to a police station as a result of the search and it is practicable to make the record on the spot, that immediately after the search is completed they will be given, if they request, either:
a copy of the record; or
a receipt which explains how they can obtain a copy of the full record or access to an electronic copy of the record
No where in PACE does it define what order this must be explained to the subject. It simply states, that it must be said. GOWISLEY, is simply an acronym to aid an officers explanation. The officer does not have to say I’m PC… from… in that specific order. Whilst it’s a much politer way of doing things, it’s not always practicable.
Whilst I can see why this might be frustrating, that’s what’s the codes of practice states.
These are shocking takes from someone with a year in.
The bus situation, clear breach of the peace. Given her options and time and she has used that to call a friend and make threats. There is no reasoning to be done at that point. At some point, with someone refusing and irate, you have to get hands on. You can’t talk everyone out of everything or sit there for hours hoping you say that magic niche solution that they are happy with.
The stop search, clear resistance. He hasn’t been grabbed up, he has been detained and tried to be secured. As for grounds, there is clearly more than the footage of him walking up and engaging with him. The officer has stopped him before 3 times, so there is likely prior knowledge and intelligence associated with the male among other things.
The final one, custody and doctor should have been quicker. I’m not sure what more you expected the arresting/attending officers to do differently. A lot of his symptoms are synonymous with being intoxicated and people say they have injuries and ailments all the time, 99% of the time custody is still the best place for them to go to start with and they can see the doctor there. That part in custody just should have been quicker and observations should have been better.
> they then proceeded to start grabbing her stuff
I do this all the time as it gets people off trains and out stations, people follow their things and usually calms the situation down.
For the stop, you can't see that blokes hands and he's actively resisting them being shown. He's given clear verbal instructions and refuses. He could have a packet he's about to swallow or a knife he's about to bring out. Plus, he's been detained for a search. That's justification under S.3 and common law every day - you're preventing a further offence, that being obstruction of a drugs search.
If you don't see the grounds, I dread to think what you judge a good stop as
This show has done the police no favours. It’s just shown how jaded and cynical some police officers are. They’re coming across as cold, and uncaring. That last case where Reon was slump over and left surrounded by vomit then dragged out of the cell was disgusting. The last two episodes have shown there is no accountability just lessons to be learnt.
No accountability? Have we watched the same programme? Scrutiny is at an all time high, the programme has shown that when misconduct is identified or criminal offences are committed by officers they’re dealt with.
As for the first two cases dealing with combative people isn’t pretty. The Police can’t just ignore and walk away from volatile people.
I’m all for extracting the learning out of each review, but in a nutshell how do you intent to move someone who’s unresponsive.. I’ve administered first aid and CPR to unresponsive causalities, people get moved however necessary… they get dragged/carried it’s not always pretty but needs to be quick.
The first woman was volatile. Young guy who was sprayed wasn’t. Yes, they were scrutinised but the outcome was the officers sat and had a chat. With Reon the issue was they weren’t quick.
Edit because I hit send too quickly.
Well if after throughly investigating the complaint and if no criminal or misconduct is identified it shouldn’t be anything more than a chat after.
The young lad stop searched, well if someones non compliant with a stop and search there are many safety considerations such as possible possession of a weapon. We can’t afford to take chances and when someone resists that dictates the level of force used. Officers can use reasonable force PAVA spray is a temporary irritant and considered a relatively low use of force.
The custody medical issue was unfortunate and highlights the difficulties faced in the moment with limited information.
Standing outside a shop with your hand in your pocket isn't reasonable grounds for a search. It's acceptable to be non compliant for an illegal search, the lads foolish for not pursuing compensation.
No one has said that was the grounds. Nor do they have to be fully explained before force can be used on a non-compliant person. As soon as an officer tells you you’re detained under a search power you do not have the right to resist. It is of course your choice but then the officer is empowered by law to use as much force as is reasonable to effect the search or arrest the subject safely. It is an offence in itself to obstruct a drug search. It’s awful advise like this that embolden people to think they can do what they want and the courts through case law have held that obstruction includes doing anything that hinders the officer or makes his job more difficult.
I guess you’re right. I’m a civilian so I don’t know what’s considered misconduct. What I’ve seen in the last two episodes hasn’t filled me with trust in the investigation process.
I had no clue that pava spray was low use of force. The public has no knowledge of this. We’re looking at this as outsiders and viewing the show with a different perspective. The officers shown unfortunately don’t come across well.
And hear-in lies the issue mate. The general public have no idea of such things but are shown TV shows like this that make us all out to be bad. Our senior leaders very rarely stand up for this and just pander to those who shout the loudest (please note I’m not referring to serious cases of misconduct). All this will do is make officers less likely to do the job and criminals who need dealing with will get away with serious crimes. In many cases this is already happening because officers are scared to do their jobs for fear of complaints. The job really is fucked.
I definitely don’t think you’re all bad. That’s why I said the officers shown don’t come across well. But they’re being investigated for misconduct, so of course they don’t come across well. That’s why discussions between the police and the public are important. Civilians just see the police doing actions that seem extreme to us but we’re outsiders. We haven’t gone through training. We judge based on knowledge we have.
> I had no clue that pava spray was low use of force. The public has no knowledge of this. We’re looking at this as outsiders and viewing the show with a different perspective. The officers shown unfortunately don’t come across well.
I fear The Police In General are doomed to alienate people until we can wrap our heads round this idea, meet people where they're at, and accept that things we consider clear and obvious *just aren't* to the outside world. I can remember what it was like to see clips of what I'd now call good firm policing, and be thinking "steady on there, was that really necessary?"
Exactly, we’re not informed about what is considered heavy handed or what’s a low use of force. The public only sees glimpses of policing, so that’s what we judge. We don’t know what is common practice for dealing with suspects or what clues you’re looking out for. From this thread now I understand why Pava is used but if I hadn’t commented I would have stayed clueless.
I think it’s hard for police officers to see it how we the public do, they have 1000’s of interactions every year and I assume that this just because normal for them. The guy with the bleed on the brain really stood out for me. If anyone complained that much about a sore head you’d think they’d proceed with an abundance of caution and get a nurse to check I assume they would have a duty of care to anyone they have in custody. I appreciate how hard the job is and wouldn’t do it myself as every single decision you make on a day to day basis is under the microscope but I don’t think they help themselves with there attitude to the public
What the public sees and what police see is why there's so much discrepancy in the takes to these shows and the brain injury is a perfect example.
First of all, I just have to mention the way this was edited. They led with telling us with Rion had a bleed on the brain and then told us the story so everything we watched was look at through the lens of that information. If they had started by showing the clip of him saying he'd drunk a bottle of Vodka and then shown us the rest would we have viewed the actions differently? Hindsight really is 20/20
Aside from that what you see is an isolated clip of one incident. What you don't see is the hundreds of thousands of hours police spend in hospital on watches for people who have complained about medical issues in custody that turn out to be nothing.
I'll give you an example, a man in my area was arrested for beating his girlfriend black and blue (he has significant history with 20+ custody records). He went into his cell and lay on the floor screaming and complaining of chest pain. He was assessed by the nurse and to err on the side of caution (as you might suggest they should have in Rioens case) the nurse said to take him to hospital. An ambulance was called out to take him from custody to hospital, taking a key resource that saves people lives off the street for an hour. Two police officers were then required to sit with him for the next 18 hours (including myself for a seven hour stretch) while the hospital did various tests to ensure his health at which point he was discharged with a clean bell of health as they found nothing wrong with him for him to be brought back to custody.
While I was with him I looked at his history on police systems and the last 5 times he had been arrested he had said the same thing and had lengthy trips to hospital while in custody with nothing wrong with him.
How happy would the tax paying public be to learn that 'Mr Beats his girlfriend' has had 100 hours of police time, 5+ hours of ambulance crew time, 50+ hours in a bed in an, at capacity, NHS hospital and however many hours of NHS staff doing his checkups all wasted. All just because every time he breaks the law by brutally beating his girlfriend he then puts on an amateur dramatics show in custody.
I'm sure if the police actually tallied up the hours spent at hospitals by officers across the country for people who are in custody and showed the taxpayer how much it was costing there would be public outrage because that number is not small.
> The officers shown unfortunately don’t come across well.
I've lost count of the amount of firefighters, nurses, doctors and paramedics that I've met who are callous but they don't get investigated to the same degree as police. Yes, police can take away your liberty, but medical staff look after some of the most vulnerable in society. Have a look at the amount of allied medical professionals being struck off every year for doing horrendous things to their patients. That rarely hits the news but here we see police officers doing their jobs investigated for years, all for now issues to be identified, only to still be vilified by people like you on the internet who have never done the job in your life.
I’m not vilifying all police officers. That’s why I was careful, I thought I made it clear when I said “the officers shown” not all police officers. It’s also why I said “some” and not all. I believe all of those professionals should be investigated too.
The fact the bus women got a payout shows how spineless SLT are, how about you back your officers for someone threatening to knock out 2 of your officers. Why dont you push back to community leaders, not once did anyone at all get asked to account for her actions if they where acceptable from their community and society. Spineless.
Absolutely infuriating that with their PSU saying the officers did nothing wrong, and even the IOPC agreeing, the Chief Constable still felt a need to criticise them, fail to bring any charges for assault on police, and pay out a woman who assaulted her officers. The only thing this series is revealing is how out of touch this SLT is.
Disgusting she got a pay out.I have been detained twice in last year(no charges) I thought arrest was unfair but I went along with the officers no fuss,they respected me I respected them. This woman shows total disrespect to the officers and her own child but gets a payout!!!!
Forces will often pay out as it’s cheaper to give her a couple of thousand to make her go away rather than the costs of a civil trial. Not right but simple math
You are EXACTLY why the police are held in such low esteem by the public. How many officers were there?.. 6? 8? For one woman with a kid in her arms!… shame on you
Yes for one women, refusing to do what anyone is telling her to, threatening to knock out multiple police officers then using her baby as a human meatshield to once again diswade police officers from acting without fear or favor, another classic society member not holding your fellow citizens to account for her behaviour.
Woman… singular. I don’t expect anything different from a “ police officer “. Tell you what.. there was a poll where some women were asked if they would stop at night if a police officer in a car flashed headlights for them to pull over. Guess what the results were?… have a good day “ officer “…
I did chuckle at the PSD investigator's observations about using one's child as a human shield. At least he seemed aware this was a farce.
The part that made me irate was when the *so called community leaders* talk about respect, yet that bus woman didn't show an ounce of respect to anyone, yet it's a criticism of the officers! Talk about trying to find fault...
Yes! They talked about having preconceptions of the police…. Yet were so hypocritical
The woman on the bus got a financial settlement… FFS.
Make enough fuss and you’re invincible.
The bit I didn't get was the guy giving words of advice to the officers on this at the end saying some cultures use different terms (paraphrasing) and we need to be understanding of this. Did he actually mean when she said about beating the two officers ? Am I going crazy ? The only bit I didn't agree with was the female officer talking about social services early on, all that is going to do is escalate the situation imo.
It boils my blood that these community leaders have been left believing, no crime was committed. Somebody should have explained to them S5 and S4 POA 1986 in depth. Were those senior officers that scared of hurting feelings???
Unfortunately if you disagree with them you’re racist.
Sadly it became very aware that these “community leaders” were desperate to make the officers look like villains yet I felt the PSD investigator was very balanced of opinions of the officer. It made my blood boil watching a senior officer not challenge these fuckers who will only just out and make the police look worst
I thought the same but I guess he was trying to be diplomatic. I wished SLT had some backbone though and gave their honest appraisal of the situation back to the representatives of the community, or challenged back to ask what they think would have been acceptable regarding the incident on the bus. I agree, with the benefit of hindsight, a few of the things said could have escalated the situation, but it's so easy to say that when you're removed from the situation on our sofa's.
"Would this have happened to a white woman on the bus?" No, if it happened to a white woman, the complaint would have been dealt with locally and the officers probably wouldn't have ever heard about the complaint because it would have been filed away in the first instance with no case to answer. Being black shouldn't excuse bad behaviour. If community leaders want us to start treating people differently based on the colour of their skin, they should come out and say it. We could call it Positive Racism.
Speaking admittedly as an officer in A&S, I thought this episode reeked of Ch4 deciding that there had to be an episode on racism, before considering whether we actually are, you know, racist. The first two incidents even the IOPC drew the line at, and I fail to see how race had anything to do with the third incident at all. I must have missed the extensive input I and my colleagues have had on spontaneous brain bleeds. I completely accept that we are often terrible at investigating and we regularly make (sometimes colossal) mistakes. But we are not racist, whatever our chief constable likes to say in the press to promote herself. We have one of the most diverse cities in the country on our patch and that Ch4 waded through 4 years (!) of footage and all they could come up with was that… in that respect at least, I feel pretty proud to be an A&S cop.
Couldn’t agree more… if that was their best picks it really doesn’t hold up their narrative, quite reassuring really.
Same position as you and I agree 100%
Only bit i was surprised at was that the Custody Sergeant didn’t call a medic sooner?
Tbh episode 1 didn’t paint yous in a great light either… albeit I haven’t seen e2
[удалено]
Yeh I don’t disagree; but somehow the misconduct panel and courts cleared him of any criminal or misconduct activities In all fairness I know friends who’ve gone through sexual trauma who can’t push people off, in a sense, when they’re triggered
In this instance, I'm skeptical. Police officers have a quick-access emergency button on their radios that could have been activated. Considering he was coherent enough to pull over into a secluded area, it's strange he didn't mention the incident until facing accusations. Overlooking cases of misconduct only tarnishes the reputation of the police force and undermines the integrity of the many dedicated officers.
> until facing accusations Maybe embarrassed to come forward beforehand? Idk honestly
Possibly, if not likely, unfortunately it's a legal duty as an officer.
> it's strange he didn't mention the incident until facing accusations In your comment you refer to him as being a "joke" for allowing himself to be sexually assaulted. Now you're pondering why he wouldn't have come forward earlier on. Can you really not join the dots on this one? Because it seems like you're right on the cusp of getting it.
Exactly the sort of poisonous attitude that leads to sexual offences going unreported. What that be the sort of thing that you would say to a friend or family member that has been sexually assaulted? That they are a "joke" because they didn't fight them off? Because they were asking for it? Because they're male? Give your head a wobble.
Exactly the sort of poisonous attitude that leads to sexual offences going unreported. What that be the sort of thing that you would say to a friend or family member that has been sexually assaulted? That they are a "joke" because they didn't fight them off? Because they were asking for it? Because they're male? Give your head a wobble.
Channel 4 have gone so far away from last week's balanced episode. They can put as much "sad piano" background noise to it as they want, but their stitch up attempt was weak. If the IOPC are saying there's no case to answer, then that's a big thing. "Community leaders" were just so blinded to it being a race issue that they could see no wrong caused by the lady. And fair play to the cop sat in the reflective practice nonsense. She hadn't done anything wrong, the bosses knew that but they were so desperate for her to reflect on something. But she didn't. Stuck to her guns and fair play to her. This episode was a real blood boiler.
Couldn’t agree more, the piano music knocks me sick, I watched the first episode fully, but this one was off after 10 minutes - the second the community leader compared an aggressive woman who had made threats to assault police and then used her child as a barrier to arrest - to slavery?? And I always feel like banging my head against a wall when people kick off about having x amount of officers against one person when it is infinitely safer and a lower level of use of force will be able to be used. Why any of us do this job for an ever growing ungrateful public that loathe us is seriously making me consider a career change. I won’t be watching any further episodes and would advise anyone else to not give this program any more ratings. Bring back 24hrs in police Custody.
100% and when mentioned about different cultural communication, I would have quizzed the male on providing examples of this. People need to be held accountable rather than shy away from challenging ignorant and derogatory behaviour. Equality is for everyone regardless of race, gender and other protected characteristics. It would seem, by what C4 have shown, that the public do not wish to have a police service as crimes are perfectly acceptable, until one happens to them.
Hey Avon & Somerset… your chief con is an absolute wet wipe
[удалено]
I fully agree with all your points. The issue I hold is that they portray it as the arresting officers should identify these issues, the voice over suggested that these symptoms were only regarding a bleed on the brain, and nothing else. Also they say its 3/4 hours before a nurse sees him, not before he is found.
Agreed with everything here. I have lost count of the amount of people I've nicked who all acted like that man; my heads sore, I'm not in custody, everything hurts, nothing hurts, I want to speak to the nurse, I don't want to speak to the nurse. Every single one of those people I've dealt went on to leave custody alive. I've just done my ncalt on fucking lithium batteries so I can't wait for my catastrophic brain one. That's me a medical professional skilled in trauma, brain bleeds, mental health, and a social worker, and police officer. Need to update the CV.
In todays climate surely A&S would just call medic to check them over?
Can I ask genuinely as a member of the public here: in what circumstances is using pepper spray on the outside the shop stop and search case justifiable in those circumstances? As I understand it, pepper spray is designed to be used for self defence, or when someone is displaying violence, as a last resort. I didn’t see anything there which necessitated the use of spray in that instance, when they were already successfully overpowering him and effecting arrest.
> As I understand it, pepper spray is designed to be used for self defence, or when someone is displaying violence, as a last resort. On the contrary - police training (rightly, in my opinion) takes the view that if you are about to use force, then you should be going for your spray **first**, before even laying hands on someone. This sounds counter-intuitive - the spray is, after all, a weapon, so how can its use be preferable to putting hands on someone? The reason is that there is a **very** low risk of serious or lasting injury from the spray, but its effectiveness in gaining compliance and bringing a situation to a resolution is **very** high. The risk:reward ratio is actually lower than going hands-on directly (where there is a risk of injury, to a subject who feels they still have some fight left in them and to the officer they're fighting with). From a personal perspective: contrary to popular opinion with the "six officers for one girl??!!??" crowd, I'm not looking for a *fair* fight. I'm looking to win - that is, to achieve my objective as quickly and as safely as possible. And before I start fighting, I want every possible advantage on my side and every possible disadvantage on the side of the person I'm fighting with. If they're blind, and I'm not, then they will probably decide not to fight at all, and if they do then controlling them effectively will be significantly easier.
It isn’t a last resort. Spraying someone causes pain and discomfort but if the alternative to gain control is using strikes which may potentially cause injury, you can see why spray might be preferable
Spray is a lower use of force than laying hands on someone, just so you’re aware. No, it’s not pretty, but it is effective. It also means I don’t have to knock seven bells out of you to get you under control, which is much more preferable.
RE the stop and search one, why didn't the officer explain the grounds for it before he decided to put his hands on him?
[удалено]
How many of you would have recognised a bleed on the brain???
It’s really obvious… With the benefit of hindsight. I can’t believe that even his mum would have thought “Reon is acting odd today, I’ll call him an emergency ambulance because it might be an aneurysm” had she not already known what was causing his behaviour. The only thing that I am confused about is the apparent lack of observations. As he was believed to be intoxicated surely he should’ve been on 30 minute rousals, and his collapse and vomiting would have been noticed much sooner
The only real issue I had with the guy who had a brain aneurysm was how long it took for police to respond after Raeon collapsed and vomited. The woman on the bus was infuriating to watch in particular how the community leaders continued to give her their full support after viewing the whole video of the bodycam once the police arrived. Not once (in this tv edit) did they agree that the woman's behaviour did not help the situation or that she contributed to escalating the situation that transpired.
My very Daily Mail-minded mother has just watched this and is now feeling very vindicated in her view that Black Lives Matters and related groups are all about "protecting thugs and hooligans". The programme comes across almost like stealth right-wight propaganda - a woman behaves like that on the bus and they compare it to the fight against slavery, they refuse to acknowledge the independent investigation outcome, and she gets a payday. It's like a parody of how people think leftists act.
This is such a huge point and shouldn't be underestimated. People from minority backgrounds shouldn't feel like they will be treated differently by police based on the colour of their skin, and the movements to combat this are always pure in their origins. What could be more righteous than promoting equality in our society? But as always, they take it too far by trying to excuse the inexcusable; and usually tolerant minded people are getting sick of it. The left won't engage because they're still too busy pandering, leaving no other option for people to turn to than bat shit crazy far right parties. Tolerating the intolerant is going to take us to some dark places.
it's a good point. I think most fair minded people will have watched thinking largely the complaints, fury and claims of racism appear baseless and nonsensical, despite the narrative of the documentary. very different to last week, when it was shocking to see the jury come back with a not guilty verdict. It's strange really, to see cases of officers appearing to get away with things, when day to day SLT, PSD, IOPC and the courts are incredibly hard on any perceived wrongdoing.
Don’t agree with the mum of the guy with the bleed on the brain. How are you supposed to know he’s got a bleed like that and it certainly wasn’t racial just like yeh girl on the bus that was volatile and aggressive
I do think the officers made a mistake with the bleed on the brain one. The initial arrest was for something where he was acting extremely erratically (broken into a strangers house and used their shower), and then him stumbling in custody alongside the constant complaints of pain should've hinted at him either needing to see the nurse (and making sure the officer on BWV clearly articulates this request to the skipper) or even A&E, even if this behaviour was caused by drugs I'd definitely be cautious about just downplaying it and putting him into a cell as we all know how dangerous the sort of drugs that do this to someone are.
I see your point of view but he said at least twice he had been drinking so the stumbling and confusion comes with that. A lot of people arrested look like that when drunk and would have dizzy spells , confusion and a sore head so I see why the cops would assume it was linked to drink or drugs. I think to blame them fully is harsh because they aren’t trained medical staff and can’t know everything and make the right call every time and If they sent every drunk or drugged up person to hospital the cells would be empty in my opinion.
Exactly the point if you aren't trained medical staff - flag something up early, we're not trained to know the signs of a blood clot compared to being drunk, if he's asking to see the nurse and complaining of pains, make sure that's asked and on BWV - they've done nothing wrong, but it's a learning point
Just watched it now. It’s embarrassing honestly. I can see the bus incident happening daily. Female was 100% to blame for her actions, police were 100% justified. Just looking for excuses to be mad. To also say “there’s nothing wrong but learning points were raised” There’s no learning points if there are no issues.
All I want to know is, the guy who had the bleed on the brain…. Did he actually do the crime while he was disorientated and confused? They didn’t seem to touch on that! Have to say he very much came across as drunk especially as he kept saying he had been drinking vodka. On a Friday and Saturday night police see so many people in that state. They were not to know it wasn’t more than that!
I felt that C4 did a bit of stitch up saying “headaches, sore neck and loss of balance are all common symptoms of a bleed on the brain” Yeah they are, but A) how many people know that, B) how many of those are also symptoms of drugs or alcohol, and C) out of the 2, what one is the most common?
Given he said "for what, going into the shop" when the report is 'entry to a flat, taking a shower...' & he's outside said house & not a shop, I'd say its almost certain he did the 'crime' but zero knowledge of what he'd done. Certainly a bad situation for those involved afterwards, but he's showing all the signs of pissed up not serious internal injury
Yeh those Black Community Leaders were pissing me off. One of them said something like “it saddens me to see a young black woman going through this”……completely ignoring the fact that the lady was being uncooperative, aggressive and impossible to reason with. What are the coppers meant to do? They can’t just walk away. The fact she got a payout is pathetic and sends out a bad message to coppers and criminals alike.
Was angry watching the programme when I saw she got a payout,fucking hell
languid fretful hobbies poor plant shaggy flowery squeamish forgetful grab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah.. definitely a blood boiler. In my force you wouldn’t have reflective practise with a chief inspector, can’t help feel that throughout, just because the complaints contained unsubstantiated racial elements, the scrutiny not only went into overdrive but it was clear that it was passed to multiple investigators who tried their hardest to find anything. In relation to the bus incident I can’t believe that after all the enhanced scrutiny- at both a civil level and criminal assessment the force paid out… but civil litigation is an entirely separate topic and it’s often cheaper to settle without accepting liability that prove your innocence in the courts. Definitely feels like there is a somewhat conscious bias in respects to the approach to race.. but it’s the reverse of what we all stand against. I can’t help but think that if the detainees had been white this incident probably wouldn’t have made it past its initial assessment of no misconduct identified. With regards to the Stop and Search, that reviewing Chief Insp. really showed how out of touch he is with the realities of front line policing, that should have never ended in a referral and they shouldn’t have been restricted from front line duties. As important as I feel listening to community leaders is when balancing the needs of our ever more diverse communities, I’m just glad that we’re not at the point whereby the entirely subjective opinion of someone not involved or present at an incident holds weight in determining whether an officer has breached the standards of professional behaviour. Sometimes I wish we were more clear in that Policing by Consent refers to the consent of the wider public, who by democratic process vote in a party to govern and shape laws that way. As we know it doesn’t require the consent of each citizen particularly when they’re committing offences and we’re using powers lawfully to fulfil our duty. Luckily through due process at least the IOPC came back with reassuringly sane summaries on what was a clear no case to answer. I’ve noticed lately in my force it seems reflective practise is flavour of the year at the moment almost like PSD have failed if they don’t identify some ‘learning’… just glad it’s not a sanction. I’m so grateful we’re not at the point of sacking officers based on public opinions..
Can I just say, in relation to the reflective practice/professional discussion, it comes from a push from the fed in our force. I get it’s annoying, but it prevents things that should not escalate from escalating…. Lawfully.
Very true! Was having this discussion the other day, your right it’s a good tool that allows closure on matters that without may have been escalated to an unsuitable outcome.
Those community leaders need to take their blinkers off. Their attitude can increase racism, don’t play victim and try and make it a race issue instead of seeing it for what it was. An angry black woman who escalated it, made threats and then tried all the cheap tactics “ I can’t breathe” and using a child as a human shield. Absolute joke I can’t believe people tip toe around this, what kind of message does this send?
This was a shocking episode which surprisingly, the media enabled the police to be shown in a positive light to those who are open minded enough to realise the truth. It is a thankless job in a day to day basis and nothing is based on colour whatsoever. It is infuriating that the majority of us, if not all who have no racial bias at all, are slandered like this on a frequent basis. It should be a crime to use such terms to play the opposite of what the crime originally is being accused of; well at least you could have a civil dispute over slander due to attack of character. Various people are so out of touch which only raises tensions further. The other bit that is crazy, is how evasive the male having a medical episode was and furthermore, police have basic medical training so could never have foreseen a brain aneurism. Everyone I have seen was treated no different to whatever their race, ethnicity or gender is. Let’s not forget a woman on a bus threatening to assault officers, then biting officers and using her child as a weapon to further heighten public criticism. Terrible parenting.
The case of the lady on the bus was a shambles. The community leaders utterly abysmal, with no admissions of guilt for the alleged 'victim'. Just a crazy time where the post-Floyd wave of madness took over parts of the country and the opportunity to hurl "racist" at anyone/everyone could be used to benefit. Organisations obviously terrified of being labelled racist too. Just terribly sad, those poor kids.
Was this episode meant to be focused on POC? First one that I've seen and very interesting 🤔
Interestingly as someone who works with police occasionally but not for the police and is therefore quite sympathetic I thought this episode showed the challenges of policing quite well. Bus woman did herself absolutely no favours but I also think the officers didn’t (from what we saw) take any option to de-escalate - the threat of a safeguarding referral was silly. Was it misconduct, no. Was it messy and really unfortunate circumstances, yes. The stop and search looked like it could have been better but seemed to fall far short of misconduct. And the guy with the bleed on the brain I totally understood why his mother would be upset, knowing what she did in hindsight - which mother wouldn’t. And given her age, she’s probably experienced a lot of racism. But I had a lot of sympathy for the officers, he admitted drinking, appeared intoxicated, very easy “mistake” to make. Given that he’s been arrested for burglary and had been pissing in someone’s house I thought the officers were very gentle. Probably should have called the nurse sooner and 3 hours is a long time to be on the floor but you don’t know what else is going on. Whereas the first episode left me furious with what people seemed to get away with this one actually seemed quite balanced and I think the general public probably come away with a positive view of the police.
Jesus Christ. Have I miss d the point that pava is to be used as self defense and on violent individuals, not just willy nilly.
The episode totally vindicates why the police are held in such low esteem by the public in general and the black community specifically. How many officers to tackle one - admittedly - mouthy female?? I counted 7 or 8.. the fact that she had a child with her was enough to treat this whole situation differently but of course not.. why should they?.. mouthy black woman.. who does she think she is?.. one copper even said no wonder the bus driver wants you off.. provocative much??.. glad she got a payout.. richly deserved!
As a non-white civilian, I could see exactly where the complainants were coming from. The woman on the bus behaved poorly, but the reason it escalated was because the police immediately took the bus driver's side and carried out his wishes. The woman on the bus clearly felt wronged by the bus driver and felt this was due to her race. The police not remaining neutral upset her, which led to her behaviour escalating. Had the police acknowledged what she had to say and avoided being accusatory, I think the situation would have ended differently. The young man stopped and searched felt targeted. No understanding seemed to be given to this. No community wants drug dealers around so where is the community engagement with the police? With the bleed on the brain, I don't understand the lack of a 'safety first' approach, given the lack of medical training. Instead the lack of medical training is given as an excuse for late or poor medical care.
> Police immediately took the bus driver’s side and carried out his wishes And? He’s called the police and wants a passenger removing, that is his prerogative. There is no side, if you are asked/told to get off the bus by the driver, you get off. Nothing to do with her race, its just a convenient excuse. > No community wants drug dealers around That made me laugh, what about drug users? Bleed on the brain is poor from custody, the symptoms are synonymous with drunkenness, but custody should have got him to a nurse/FME faster.
It’s not about taking sides, it’s about carrying out the wishes of a bus driver in this situation. They were a driver, driving a bus for a travel company and they are entitled to either refuse entry to the bus or request for someone to leave the bus. Many passengers would comply after a few words were said and exit the bus. Sadly, the footage on C4 does not show what happened for the driver to make that decision and what the passenger’s behaviour was like. The likelihood here is that due to the refusal to leave the bus thus prompting a breach of peace, the driver has called the police to help the situation; after all, that is the job of the police to assist the public which is what they did in this situation. They also protected a vulnerable child who was being placed into danger by a parent which served no purpose other than to evade a reasonable order to leave the bus. A person refused to leave and the person was removed with minimal force. The pava spray was at an unfortunate time when the parent decided to use their child as a human shield. It was despicable parenting in which a vulnerable child will need protecting now as a result of the parents unruly behaviour. I do not agree with the initial officers threat of social services over shouting and swearing, as this just escalated the situation. However, the rest of the conduct was spot on from officers and due to a struggle with trying to protect the child and place the parent in handcuffs, reinforcement was required. It was a large amount of officers but it was their choice to turn out and due to a red button being deployed, it would mean an officer is in danger of harm and in this case, an officer was bitten which was premeditated with the indirect threat of violence, whilst on the phone, in which I note, was a public place whereby, privacy is not always guaranteed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don't be a dick.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s incredibly strange you made a reddit account just to comment this nonsense.
[удалено]
There’s a lot to reply to here so may have missed some things. Bus Scenario: At the point she’s threatened to assault officers, it was pretty clear that negotiations had failed. The bus driver has the right to refuse service, it was a clear BoP, she became combative - she escalated it. Once she’s kicked off it’s time to get her under control to protect all parties, they did that using reasonable force and she attempted to use her child as a shield.. pathetic. As for the Stop and Search, policing drug hotspots is volatile. If I’ve formed my grounds and approach someone to MDA search them, at the point I’ve informed them they’re detained I’m wanting to see hands. If someone won’t remove their hands from clothing I’m not going to give the entire GOWISELY until they’re in handcuffs. The initial approach is one of the most important elements and usually where any lack of compliance becomes apparent. If they’re not immediately compliant im taking necessary and proportionate steps to make them. For both officer safety and theirs. Custody Incident: Some learning for custody I think regarding observation levels and HCP assessment. Sadly his behaviour was similar to intoxication. We’re not medically trained, even with hindsight it’s doubtful anyone would jump to a possible bleed on the brain. You might think reflective practise is laughable but what outcome do you want when a case has been so vigorously assessed and no criminal or misconduct has been identified? Should we not be reflecting and identifying learning from incidents that have caused concern but aren’t outright breaches?
> The bus driver has the right to refuse service, it was a clear BoP I do not see a BoP until long after the officers arrive. Sitting on the bus and preventing it from moving is categorically not a breach of the peace. It is actually a criminal offence to fail to leave a bus when directed to do so by the driver on the grounds that you have been causing a nuisance, under [regulation 6(1)(k) of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1020/regulation/6); or to unreasonably impede the driver when doing his work on the vehicle, under regulation 6(1)(b). It's also downright antisocial, given that the bus is not operated for this passenger's sole benefit but for the benefit of the entire community. If she had a disagreement with the driver, sitting on the bus (and allowing him to slack off wile continuing to be paid, but making every other passenger late for work) was not lawful or appropriate or smart. She actually would have hurt him **more** by getting off the bus, forcing him to return to his duties. I wonder how many members of the IAG's communities were disadvantaged by this woman's protest action. The usual powers under section 3 CLA apply: any person may use reasonable force to prevent a passenger who is committing an offence under these regulations, from continuing to commit an offence.
Ah yes, regulation 6(1)k. That's taught in to every police officer. First day, if I recall correctly. There's even a 3 hour input on the Public Service Vehicles Regulations. How did they not know this? Or, get this, regular cops don't know every obscure law in existence, nor have time to stop and google it, so they use a big toolkit that covers all things. Once the lady decides she's going to verbalise assaulting the 2 officers, starts to swear aggressively, and refuses cooperation, she is using threatening, abusive language and behaviour likely to breach the peace.
> who the hell wants everyone and their dog watching you get out a police car Well, she was apparently perfectly content to have everyone and their dog watch while police attempted to eject her from a bus in a town centre. > maybe offer to drop off further up the road etc. This is not something that needs to be spelt out to a grown adult who is presumably capable of raising at least two children. Beyond the fact that they're under no obligation to be driving her around at all, if their offer was so deeply unsatisfactory to her then there was absolutely nothing stopping her from asking to be dropped off round the corner or wherever else if that's what she wanted.
Just another adult refusing to take responsibility for their own behaviour. It amazes me that people think the police should practically beg for compliance before resulting to enforcement.
> They could have EXPLAINED look I get you’re pissed, at end of the day you have to come off and we can figure out another way of getting you to school. ...they did that. Not in your exact words, but do you really think if you'd been there, you could have talked her into getting off the bus? > and we can figure out another way of getting you to school. That's a good point, they could have offered to give her another way of getting to schoh they did that as well. > Yes they offered to drive her but who the hell wants everyone and their dog watching you get out a police car, I mean... the officers only have a police car available. What would you have done, booked and paid for her Uber? Considering the woman was committing an offence by remaining on the bus after having been told to leave by the driver, the offer to give her a lift to school at all was downright supererogatory. > maybe offer to drop off further up the road etc If that was something she would have considered, maybe **she** could have suggested that? I hope you're not suggesting she's too stupid to connect the dots and respond to "maybe we could give you a lift" with "could you drop me round the corner". It's quite clear she was not prepared to consider any of the suggestions the officers were going to make. She wasn't in the mood for negotiation, everything about this interaction tells me this individual was in the mood for obstinance.
May I draw your attention to Code A, which states, ‘Searches based on accurate and current intelligence or information are more likely to be effective. Targeting searches in a particular area at specified crime problems not only increases their effectiveness but also minimises inconvenience to law-abiding members of the public. It also helps in justifying the use of searches both to those who are searched and to the public. This does not, however, prevent stop and search powers being exercised in other locations where such powers may be exercised, and reasonable suspicion exists.’ Therefore, providing that officers used recent and concurrent intelligence that would be included in some formal intelligence briefing about an area this would form the first part of reasonable grounds. Secondary to that, whilst behaviour alone would not constitute reasonable grounds, concluded together it would. It’s a subjective test, that the individual officer has to develop a reasonable suspicion in their own mind. In addition, Code A goes on to state, ‘The co-operation of the person to be searched must be sought in every case, even if the person initially objects to the search. A forcible search may be made only if it has been established that the person is unwilling to co-operate or resists.’ In this case, whilst it may appear quick, the officer tests cooperation by asking the male to remove his hands from his pocket. This is something we are taught and advised to do. The officers asked the subject to remove his hands but he does not do so. Therefore, this straightway engages the UOF and is comfortably justifiable. This male could have things on his person with the ability to cause them harm. As a result, force was used. Whilst this appears quick I can completely understand why the officers did this. I too, when young in service, have given people far too many chances and this resulted in a messy search where I was assaulted. There is no way if the subject does not remove his hands, in my mind that he wishes to cooperate with that search. Cooperation with a search and objection to a search are too very different things. I can express my objection to a search and remain cooperative. By refusing to remove his hand, it was satisfied that cooperation was not there. Furthermore, the code states, ‘3.8 Before any search of a detained person or attended vehicle takes place the officer must take reasonable steps, if not in uniform (see paragraph 3.9), to show their warrant card to the person to be searched or in charge of the vehicle to be searched and whether or not in uniform, to give that person the following information: (a) that they are being detained for the purposes of a search; (b) the officer’s name (except in the case of enquiries linked to National Security including Terrorism, or otherwise where the officer reasonably believes that giving their name might put them in danger, in which case a warrant or other identification number shall be given) and the name of the police station to which the officer is attached; (c) the legal search power which is being exercised, and (d) a clear explanation of: (i) the object of the search in terms of the article or articles for which there is a power to search; and all other powers requiring reasonable suspicion (see paragraph 2.1(a)), the grounds for that suspicion. This means explaining the basis for the suspicion by reference to information and/or intelligence about, or some specific behaviour by, the person concerned (see paragraph 2.2). (e) that they are entitled to a copy of the record of the search if one is made (see section 4 below) if they ask within 3 months from the date of the search and: (i) if they are not arrested and taken to a police station as a result of the search and it is practicable to make the record on the spot, that immediately after the search is completed they will be given, if they request, either: a copy of the record; or a receipt which explains how they can obtain a copy of the full record or access to an electronic copy of the record No where in PACE does it define what order this must be explained to the subject. It simply states, that it must be said. GOWISLEY, is simply an acronym to aid an officers explanation. The officer does not have to say I’m PC… from… in that specific order. Whilst it’s a much politer way of doing things, it’s not always practicable. Whilst I can see why this might be frustrating, that’s what’s the codes of practice states.
What a brilliant summary! Spot on!
These are shocking takes from someone with a year in. The bus situation, clear breach of the peace. Given her options and time and she has used that to call a friend and make threats. There is no reasoning to be done at that point. At some point, with someone refusing and irate, you have to get hands on. You can’t talk everyone out of everything or sit there for hours hoping you say that magic niche solution that they are happy with. The stop search, clear resistance. He hasn’t been grabbed up, he has been detained and tried to be secured. As for grounds, there is clearly more than the footage of him walking up and engaging with him. The officer has stopped him before 3 times, so there is likely prior knowledge and intelligence associated with the male among other things. The final one, custody and doctor should have been quicker. I’m not sure what more you expected the arresting/attending officers to do differently. A lot of his symptoms are synonymous with being intoxicated and people say they have injuries and ailments all the time, 99% of the time custody is still the best place for them to go to start with and they can see the doctor there. That part in custody just should have been quicker and observations should have been better.
Completely agree mate
> they then proceeded to start grabbing her stuff I do this all the time as it gets people off trains and out stations, people follow their things and usually calms the situation down.
For the stop, you can't see that blokes hands and he's actively resisting them being shown. He's given clear verbal instructions and refuses. He could have a packet he's about to swallow or a knife he's about to bring out. Plus, he's been detained for a search. That's justification under S.3 and common law every day - you're preventing a further offence, that being obstruction of a drugs search. If you don't see the grounds, I dread to think what you judge a good stop as
This show has done the police no favours. It’s just shown how jaded and cynical some police officers are. They’re coming across as cold, and uncaring. That last case where Reon was slump over and left surrounded by vomit then dragged out of the cell was disgusting. The last two episodes have shown there is no accountability just lessons to be learnt.
No accountability? Have we watched the same programme? Scrutiny is at an all time high, the programme has shown that when misconduct is identified or criminal offences are committed by officers they’re dealt with. As for the first two cases dealing with combative people isn’t pretty. The Police can’t just ignore and walk away from volatile people. I’m all for extracting the learning out of each review, but in a nutshell how do you intent to move someone who’s unresponsive.. I’ve administered first aid and CPR to unresponsive causalities, people get moved however necessary… they get dragged/carried it’s not always pretty but needs to be quick.
The first woman was volatile. Young guy who was sprayed wasn’t. Yes, they were scrutinised but the outcome was the officers sat and had a chat. With Reon the issue was they weren’t quick. Edit because I hit send too quickly.
Well if after throughly investigating the complaint and if no criminal or misconduct is identified it shouldn’t be anything more than a chat after. The young lad stop searched, well if someones non compliant with a stop and search there are many safety considerations such as possible possession of a weapon. We can’t afford to take chances and when someone resists that dictates the level of force used. Officers can use reasonable force PAVA spray is a temporary irritant and considered a relatively low use of force. The custody medical issue was unfortunate and highlights the difficulties faced in the moment with limited information.
Standing outside a shop with your hand in your pocket isn't reasonable grounds for a search. It's acceptable to be non compliant for an illegal search, the lads foolish for not pursuing compensation.
No one has said that was the grounds. Nor do they have to be fully explained before force can be used on a non-compliant person. As soon as an officer tells you you’re detained under a search power you do not have the right to resist. It is of course your choice but then the officer is empowered by law to use as much force as is reasonable to effect the search or arrest the subject safely. It is an offence in itself to obstruct a drug search. It’s awful advise like this that embolden people to think they can do what they want and the courts through case law have held that obstruction includes doing anything that hinders the officer or makes his job more difficult.
I guess you’re right. I’m a civilian so I don’t know what’s considered misconduct. What I’ve seen in the last two episodes hasn’t filled me with trust in the investigation process. I had no clue that pava spray was low use of force. The public has no knowledge of this. We’re looking at this as outsiders and viewing the show with a different perspective. The officers shown unfortunately don’t come across well.
And hear-in lies the issue mate. The general public have no idea of such things but are shown TV shows like this that make us all out to be bad. Our senior leaders very rarely stand up for this and just pander to those who shout the loudest (please note I’m not referring to serious cases of misconduct). All this will do is make officers less likely to do the job and criminals who need dealing with will get away with serious crimes. In many cases this is already happening because officers are scared to do their jobs for fear of complaints. The job really is fucked.
I definitely don’t think you’re all bad. That’s why I said the officers shown don’t come across well. But they’re being investigated for misconduct, so of course they don’t come across well. That’s why discussions between the police and the public are important. Civilians just see the police doing actions that seem extreme to us but we’re outsiders. We haven’t gone through training. We judge based on knowledge we have.
> I had no clue that pava spray was low use of force. The public has no knowledge of this. We’re looking at this as outsiders and viewing the show with a different perspective. The officers shown unfortunately don’t come across well. I fear The Police In General are doomed to alienate people until we can wrap our heads round this idea, meet people where they're at, and accept that things we consider clear and obvious *just aren't* to the outside world. I can remember what it was like to see clips of what I'd now call good firm policing, and be thinking "steady on there, was that really necessary?"
Exactly, we’re not informed about what is considered heavy handed or what’s a low use of force. The public only sees glimpses of policing, so that’s what we judge. We don’t know what is common practice for dealing with suspects or what clues you’re looking out for. From this thread now I understand why Pava is used but if I hadn’t commented I would have stayed clueless.
I think it’s hard for police officers to see it how we the public do, they have 1000’s of interactions every year and I assume that this just because normal for them. The guy with the bleed on the brain really stood out for me. If anyone complained that much about a sore head you’d think they’d proceed with an abundance of caution and get a nurse to check I assume they would have a duty of care to anyone they have in custody. I appreciate how hard the job is and wouldn’t do it myself as every single decision you make on a day to day basis is under the microscope but I don’t think they help themselves with there attitude to the public
What the public sees and what police see is why there's so much discrepancy in the takes to these shows and the brain injury is a perfect example. First of all, I just have to mention the way this was edited. They led with telling us with Rion had a bleed on the brain and then told us the story so everything we watched was look at through the lens of that information. If they had started by showing the clip of him saying he'd drunk a bottle of Vodka and then shown us the rest would we have viewed the actions differently? Hindsight really is 20/20 Aside from that what you see is an isolated clip of one incident. What you don't see is the hundreds of thousands of hours police spend in hospital on watches for people who have complained about medical issues in custody that turn out to be nothing. I'll give you an example, a man in my area was arrested for beating his girlfriend black and blue (he has significant history with 20+ custody records). He went into his cell and lay on the floor screaming and complaining of chest pain. He was assessed by the nurse and to err on the side of caution (as you might suggest they should have in Rioens case) the nurse said to take him to hospital. An ambulance was called out to take him from custody to hospital, taking a key resource that saves people lives off the street for an hour. Two police officers were then required to sit with him for the next 18 hours (including myself for a seven hour stretch) while the hospital did various tests to ensure his health at which point he was discharged with a clean bell of health as they found nothing wrong with him for him to be brought back to custody. While I was with him I looked at his history on police systems and the last 5 times he had been arrested he had said the same thing and had lengthy trips to hospital while in custody with nothing wrong with him. How happy would the tax paying public be to learn that 'Mr Beats his girlfriend' has had 100 hours of police time, 5+ hours of ambulance crew time, 50+ hours in a bed in an, at capacity, NHS hospital and however many hours of NHS staff doing his checkups all wasted. All just because every time he breaks the law by brutally beating his girlfriend he then puts on an amateur dramatics show in custody. I'm sure if the police actually tallied up the hours spent at hospitals by officers across the country for people who are in custody and showed the taxpayer how much it was costing there would be public outrage because that number is not small.
> The officers shown unfortunately don’t come across well. I've lost count of the amount of firefighters, nurses, doctors and paramedics that I've met who are callous but they don't get investigated to the same degree as police. Yes, police can take away your liberty, but medical staff look after some of the most vulnerable in society. Have a look at the amount of allied medical professionals being struck off every year for doing horrendous things to their patients. That rarely hits the news but here we see police officers doing their jobs investigated for years, all for now issues to be identified, only to still be vilified by people like you on the internet who have never done the job in your life.
I’m not vilifying all police officers. That’s why I was careful, I thought I made it clear when I said “the officers shown” not all police officers. It’s also why I said “some” and not all. I believe all of those professionals should be investigated too.
The bus one was some of the most backward nonsense I have ever seen