A Metropolitan Police officer was filmed yesterday performing a stop and search on the founder of the Black Cyclists Network (BCN), claiming that he could smell marijuana on him. The cyclist, Mani Arthur, described it as “a degrading and humiliating experience.”
The incident happened at around 2.39pm yesterday afternoon at the junction of Woburn Place and Euston Road, with the officer stopping Mani Arthur, who was riding with two other BCN members, one of whom filmed what happened.
Posting the video to Instagram, Arthur said: “I was detained and searched by a police officer under the suspicion of ‘smelling’ of marijuana. I was harassed and humiliated in a public space.
“To say that I am pissed off is an understatement. Luckily for me, fellow BCN members Aaron and Hugo were present and recorded the incident.”
Recounting the background to the incident, he wrote: “In short, I was waiting in traffic for a green light. Three police officers were crossing the road.
“The one in the video told me to reverse my bicycle back behind the white line where vehicles have to stop. I was not blocking the pedestrian crossing.
“I told the officer that I would be putting myself in danger if I reversed because a small HGV was sitting directly behind me and I would end up in the driver’s blind spot if I followed his instructions.
“I explained to the officer that usually there are cycle box lanes ahead of vehicle stop lines to protect cyclists and because there is a lack of one, I was using my common sense to avoid putting myself in danger.
“The officer tried again but I resisted and he turned around to join his colleagues as they were walking away. The lights changed to green.”
That seemed to have brought the episode to a close, but that was not the case.
“I was riding off to join Aaron and Hugo, who by that point were in the middle of the junction when I heard a call from the officer to turn back,” said Arthur.
“I walked over to the officer on the pavement. He asked for my ID and informed me that he smelled cannabis on me during our exchange.
“As a result he needed to search me for possession. He searched me by the side of the road.
“Before the search, I asked him and his colleagues if they smell cannabis on me. They said yes. After the search. They conveniently said they did not smell cannabis on me.”
He added: “I am very annoyed at having to go through such a degrading and humiliating experience.
“It seemed to me like a gross abuse of power by an officer who tried to show off to his colleagues and made up a reason as retribution for his failed attempt.”
Posting the same video to the Regent’s Park Cyclists group on Facebook, he added: “Anyone that knows me knows that I don’t smoke. I barely drink. This just adds insult to injury.”
British Cycling, when it published its Diversity in Cycling report in June this year, said that it had started “as a grassroots project that was sparked by a conversation between experienced road racer Andy Edwards and Black Cyclists Network founder, Mani Arthur.”
The governing body said that the report, which “sets out to explore the experiences of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) cyclists taking up cycling as a sport for the first time,” would be shared with “its network of volunteers, clubs and members.”




-1024x680.jpg)


















104 thoughts on “Metropolitan Police officer does stop and search on Black Cyclists Network founder after ‘smelling’ marijuana”
I feel for this bloke. I can
I feel for this bloke. I can never possibly know his frustration.
Obviously guilty of the crime of cycling whilst Black.
ktache wrote:
From what I saw and read the cyclist never brought colour into it. Why must you? Because he’s black?
Sriracha wrote:
You’re right, it was certainly just a coincidence.
Sriracha wrote:
I feel for this bloke. I can never possibly know his frustration.
Obviously guilty of the crime of cycling whilst Black.
— Sriracha From what I saw and read the cyclist never brought colour into it. Why must you? Because he’s black?— ktache
Yes, it’s absolutely pure coincidence that the police should choose to perform this sort of search on a black cyclist wearing a Black Cyclists Network top. I mean, I myself have been cycling regularly in London for thirty-five years and have never once been stopped by an officer for smelling of marijuana (even when, in my younger days, I might well have been). This has nothing to do with the fact that I’m white, of course.
If you think the rider’s colour had nothing to do with this, you’re part of the problem. For decades I have seen my black friends singled out of crowds for “random” searches, stopped and questioned when crimes have been committed in the neighbourhood “by a black man”, ignored by taxi drivers when they try to hail cabs, stopped and asked for proof of ownership when driving expensive cars, etc etc etc ad nauseam. This is very much part of that pattern.
Mani, if you’re reading these comments mate, please (if you have the energy, quite understand if you’re so sickened by this crap you can’t be bothered) make a complaint to the IPOC. They will take you seriously and they will hold the Met to account with the evidence you have.
The only time I’ve ever been
The only time I’ve ever been stopped by the police for doing nothing was when I was in a car driven by a black West Indian friend; he had also done nothing. That was 1977 and funnily enough “nothing” hasn’t changed it’s still a reason to stop black people.
Perhaps those officers can visit Southend High Street on a Saturday or Rochford Station on a morning commute; lots of them white folks smelling of and smoking the wacky backy; nobody seems to care.
Legin wrote:
Yep, smoking it in public has been effectively decriminalized by absence of enforcement – except when the police decide it hasn’t. And a law that’s only randomly enforced ceases to be a meaningful tool of order.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Decriminalise it and reap the tax benefits (and also reduce the money going towards organised crime etc.).
Maybe if the police (or at
Maybe if the police (or at least the MET) want to earn a bit of respect, they should stop with this kind of shit. They have a difficult job to do and this kind of incident is making a mockery of their job and their colleagues.
Yes, bloody shocking. I grew
Yes, bloody shocking. I grew up in London and am not sorry to see the back of the place. If Mani is reading this, get in touch if you fancy a weekend away and a decent, copper free ride in the Peak District with a bunch of non-racist white guys.
PP
Same old story – there is a
Same old story – there is a class of copper who treat reason and logic as a challenge to their authority and react accordingly – especially if you are a PoC.
It shouldn’t happen.
Why are your sniffer dogs in
Why are your sniffer dogs in uniform? And why are they off leash?
Agree with everything above.
Agree with everything above.
We don’t have a jaywalking rule in the UK that bigoted cops can use to humiliate people with (and sometimes criminalise with) so they pull this shit. Heard too many stories of this sort of thing happening in the past. It’s now 2019 FFS. This is why people don’t want a return of widespread stop and search – it gets abused too often and leads to a huge amount of resentment.
Loitering with intent to use
Loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing
Looking at me in a funny way
Walking around in a loud shirt in a built up area.
Despicable. Still
Despicable. Still institutional racism in the met.
I’m reading this after
I’m reading this after watching the video of Ebenezer Azamati, and am feeling sick of the institutional racism in this country. Props to Mani and the guys with him for keeping their cool.
Riding a bike and black, he’s
Riding a bike and black, he’s lucky to have escaped being arrested. Clearly the officer didn’t like having his authority challenged in front of his mates, so decided to make Mani pay for it. Must be difficult having such a fragile ego when you’re a policeman.
Agree with all of the above.
Agree with all of the above.
And what a mess the officer looked too. Looked like he’d come straight out of the pub.
There is another picture of
There is another picture of him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reg_Varney
Legin wrote:
TBH when i saw the picture i wondered if the policemans name was Herrick… (I note the video isnt exactly in bright sunlight, hmm?)
I don’t know about the UK,
I don’t know about the UK, but in the USA, I get the impression that police are trained on day one to say that they smell pot immediately after initiating a traffic stop, as a way to establish probable cause for a search.
Constable Savage, was it?
Constable Savage, was it?
vonhelmet wrote:
Can’t say I noticed sir.
Patting him down, we can all
Patting him down, we can all see he is hiding nothing 🙂
Looks to me the officer
Looks to me the officer couldnt wait to touch the cyclist, he went straight for the crotch before he was even finished taking the overshoes off. I wonder if there has always been a subtext for his ambition to get a uniform on and have the ability to abuse police powers. Kudos to the cyclist for keeping cool, a better person than me.
This is an apauling abuse of
This is an apauling abuse of power and I feel for the victim. I have to add that I have a huge respect for the Police as they have a very difficult job to do and I wouldn’t like to do it. However this sort of behaviour does them no fovors at all. I really think this should be escalated.
How it works in a white area:
How it works in a white area:
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/18044234.its-time-stop-luxury-flats-stinking-drugs/
Are we sure that copper was
Are we sure that copper was the real deal? He looks like he’s come straight from a very boozy fancy dress party.
I’ve also been told by a Met copper to move back behind the stop line at traffic lights without a ASL. When I refused, I was told to move onto the pavement and given a sanctimonious lecture about how dangerous the roads would be if everyone ignored traffic lights, and threatened with a fine. I bit my tongue.
Kudos to the guy in the video for remaining polite and good-humoured in the face of such a prat.
srchar wrote:
Having not lived in London for some time, I presume these days the police will routinely tell motorists to reverse back behind an ASL when they encroach into it?
Kendalred wrote:
Black or white motorist?
srchar wrote:
Why didn’t you just move back ? Technically he’s (or she’s) right and you are wrong. Maybe you should be thankful they didn’t decide to give you a fixed penalty notice .
nicmason wrote:
Because it’s obviously far better to be wrong but not under the wheels of a truck?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Certainly a variation on the usual ‘no point being right if you are dead’ position.
nicmason wrote:
Because I’d have had to position myself either between the kerb and car turning left, or between two cars, neither of which is a safe position. It’s not possible to know whether there’s a bike’s length between a car’s front bumper and the stop line until you’ve filtered to the front of the queue. Perhaps I should have just joined the back of the queue.
[i]Technically[/i], you can be tried for treason if you affix a postage stamp to a letter upside-down.
srchar wrote:
Just from the still picture above, I was wondering if it was some sort of Harry Hill tribute act.
Did the officer witness him
Did the officer witness him crossing the STOP line while the light was red? If not then he has no right to insist that he move.
For all he knew, the guy might have crossed it while still green, saw the junction was blocked and decided to wait.
I would have stayed right where I was. Fuck the law on this point, it’s stupid. No way would I sit in a HGV’s blind spot.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Ok so if it was green but the junction was blocked he shouldnt have gone and the policeman does have right to ask him to move . Or stop being part of the traffic get off the bike and get on the pavement.
nicmason wrote:
Does the policeman also have the right to then make a clearly false allegation that the cyclist smells of marijuana and subject him to a humiliating public body search? Think you’re kind of missing the main point here…
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
I’m not commenting on the main point.
Several people have commented that if the police told them to move they wouldn’t do it. Maybe they’d close their eyes so they where invisible as well.
nicmason wrote:
But the point is, as I understand it, that the position to which the police were asking Mani to move, was a dangerous position that bikeability etc say “Don’t go there!”.
If the police told your kids to go play in the motorway, would you expect them to obey or to question a dangerous/harmful instruction?

brooksby wrote:
Mots people are very rarely told what to do by the police Ss some people to get quite chippy when that happens (lets leave aside the race issue for now thats a seperate thing). Try going to a football match between clubs where the fans have a history of attacking each other . The police will tell you in no uncertain terms where to go and what to do and won’t make a special rule for you because you want to do something different because you think thats “best”.
nicmason wrote:
Why aren’t you commenting on the main point? Why when the article and video show an egregious example of police racism and exceeding their reasonable powers are you focussing on whether someone’s wheel was two feet over the stop line? What’s more important here, and why are you insisting on distracting from the obvious and worrying abuse of power against a black man by police by nitpicking about minor traffic regs? What’s your motivation?
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Because this is a cycling magazinr not a civil rights magazine.
nicmason wrote:
Wow. So a cycling magazine should ignore the police making a racist stop on the cyclist founder of a black cycling campaign when he’s out cycling, or if the magazine does misguidedly report it we should completely ignore the racism and argue about whether the initial contact of the officer telling a cyclist to pull his wheel back a couple of feet was justified? I’ve got a feeling you might just be a bit of an old racist yourself there, nic, and by “a feeling” I mean “it’s blindingly obvious”.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Thanks for that man who knows nothing about me .
nicmason wrote:
I do know about you from your comments on here, in which you have repeatedly tried to divert attention away from a prima facie case of police racism into a pointless discussion of traffic laws in a transparent attempt to shift the blame onto the victim of said police racism. That quite clearly makes you a defender of/apologist for police racism, and that makes you a racist.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Youre quite the one for virtue signalling aren’t you .
nicmason wrote:
Ah, attacking racism seen as “virtue signalling” – classic racist trope.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Ah, attacking racism seen as “virtue signalling” – classic racist trope.
[/quote]
By any chance do you have a beard and eat avocado on toast ?
nicmason wrote:
Ah, attacking racism seen as “virtue signalling” – classic racist trope.
[/quote]
By any chance do you have a beard and eat avocado on toast ?
[/quote]
Why, would that mitigate your racism in some way, do you think?
That the best you’ve got? Thanks for the demonstration of the fact that while not all thick people are racists, all racists are thick.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Ah, attacking racism seen as “virtue signalling” – classic racist trope.
[/quote]
By any chance do you have a beard and eat avocado on toast ?
[/quote]
Why, would that mitigate your racism in some way, do you think?
That the best you’ve got? Thanks for the demonstration of the fact that while not all thick people are racists, all racists are thick.
[/quote]
You’re very angry aren’t you .. I’m not a racist but I don’t resent you saying that and tbh I don’t care .
nicmason wrote:
Ah, attacking racism seen as “virtue signalling” – classic racist trope.
[/quote]
By any chance do you have a beard and eat avocado on toast ?
[/quote]
Why, would that mitigate your racism in some way, do you think?
That the best you’ve got? Thanks for the demonstration of the fact that while not all thick people are racists, all racists are thick.
[/quote]
You’re very angry aren’t you .. I’m not a racist but I don’t resent you saying that and tbh I don’t care .
[/quote]
Yep, casual, petty, cowardly, anonymous racism such as you have quite clearly displayed on this thread does make me very angry indeed. Well done.
nicmason wrote:
Virtue signalling is a bullshit term used by people to shut down arguments with people who may actually be more virtuous than them.
vonhelmet wrote:
I do know about you from your comments on here, in which you have repeatedly tried to divert attention away from a prima facie case of police racism into a pointless discussion of traffic laws in a transparent attempt to shift the blame onto the victim of said police racism. That quite clearly makes you a defender of/apologist for police racism, and that makes you a racist. — Roubaixcobbles
Youre quite the one for virtue signalling aren’t you .
— nicmason Virtue signalling is a bullshit term used by people to shut down arguments with people who may actually be more virtuous than them.[/quote]
And calling people racist without any cause is ?
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
I would want to know how the guy being stopped felt about it – I didn’t see him allege racism in the tweet quoted. Though I’ve known enough black people who commented on how frequently they got stopped and searched/questioned, to find it very likely that race came into it. I’d believe him if he made that argument, but surely it’s really up to the guy who got stopped to raise the issue first?
Edit – having looked back at previous posts, I don’t agree with nicmason’s attitude.
FluffyKittenofTindalos]
[quote=nicmason]
[quote=Roubaixcobbles]
[quote=nicmason]
[ Edit – having looked back at previous posts, I don’t agree with nicmason’s attitude.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’m curious. Which bit of my “attitude”
nicmason]
“Attitude” was the wrong word – should have said “comments”. But the word was in my mind because posters keep using it about this cyclist, and it does have a certain racial implication in the way it gets used.
But I disagree with:
Your focus exclusively on a minor side-issue.
That you leapt in to take issue with a poster who was expressing an understandable irritation at the double-standards employed by the police. Regardless of whether I would say the same thing, or entirely agree, I get why they might feel that way.
That you _seem_ to have the view that one should obey the police because they are always right – when I’d say I would mainly obey them simply because they have power, so personally I wouldn’t want to take the risk of not doing so. I prefer a quiet life, me.
Both from a few personal experiences and those of people I know, and from numerous news stories, it seems to me they are quite often wrong, both about the law and about the safe thing to do (Hillsborough comes to mind). They certainly seem to have a double-standard about road-behaviour by motorists vs cyclists. I personally feel more confident in seeing this as being about that rather than race, but it could be both.
FluffyKittenofTindalos]
[quote=nicmason]
[quote=Roubaixcobbles]
[quote=nicmason]
[ Edit – having looked back at previous posts, I don’t agree with nicmason’s attitude.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
I’m curious. Which bit of my “attitude”
— nicmason “Attitude” was the wrong word – should have said “comments”. But the word was in my mind because posters keep using it about this cyclist, and it does have a certain racial implication in the way it gets used. But I disagree with: Your focus exclusively on a minor side-issue. That you leapt in to take issue with a poster who was expressing an understandable irritation at the double-standards employed by the police. Regardless of whether I would say the same thing, or entirely agree, I get why they might feel that way. That you _seem_ to have the view that one should obey the police because they are always right – when I’d say I would mainly obey them simply because they have power, so personally I wouldn’t want to take the risk of not doing so. I prefer a quiet life, me. Both from a few personal experiences and those of people I know, and from numerous news stories, it seems to me they are quite often wrong, both about the law and about the safe thing to do (Hillsborough comes to mind). They certainly seem to have a double-standard about road-behaviour by motorists vs cyclists. I personally feel more confident in seeing this as being about that rather than race, but it could be both.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Thanks for that.
My “original ” point was that if you are stopped over the white line and a police officer asks you to move back that doesn’t mean you are right and they are wrong because you are in a “safe” space. You have a choice to do move or pick an argument and that may not go well. I have been spoken to for exactly this thing. So I don’t have view that you should always obey the police but I do accept that if I argue it probbaly won’t go well.
nicmason wrote:
And were you (and I’m going to take a wild guess that you are distinctly caucasian?) accused of smelling of marijuana and pulled off your bike for a public body search? No? Fancy that, now!
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Remember how in this case the smell of marijuana mysteriously disappeared after the police had made their point, too. Coincidence, of course.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
How do you know it was racist?
Sriracha wrote:
Have you been paying attention? Stop and search is used disproportionately against ethnic minorities without any commensurate level of “finding” following the searches.
vonhelmet wrote:
So from that you conclude that this instance was racist? Maybe it was. But on the evidence of a single episode, unless we can see into the motivations of the officer, there is no way to tell. You can not just say that because the guy is black therefore this negative interaction is racially motivated. Are all interactions across races predicated on colour, or just the negative ones? It becomes pure confirmation bias at that point; the guy is black, ergo racism – I see it every day. Maybe the officer just made a bad call, not ideal, but hey.
nic,
nic,
Never made a miostake whislt driving, riding or walking. Never ended up out of position.
In this case, the rider clearly said that he’d filtered expecting there to be a cycle box and there wasn’t. So he placed himself in a safe position for him and other road users.
You do realise that the issue is that the officer made up a bullshit excuse to search him don’t you?
Is there something that has
Is there something that has been cropped since the piece was first posted. Seems as if most people are spouting about something that isn’t visible. Opinion maybe.
The rider made an error and was chastised for it. End. Quite possibly his attitude aggravated things. If he was in the wrong place he should do as asked by the police. Its the whole point of them. You don’t argue. To say that you do makes amockery of the system. I assume that all those who say that we can argue are suggesting that we can all decide what rules we like. I guess that they are Ok with me carrying a knife all the time. I do. Its bloody useful. Used almost every day. However should I be asked to refrain in certain circumstances I do so as the law requires.
Two seperate incidents here with some one who has a chip on his shoulder making an ecuse for poor manners.
The reason for the chip is totally irrelevant to a cycling forum.
Have to say, I guess, that so is a good chunck of the what passes for news on the cycling equivelant of The Sun.
mattsccm wrote:
When you say an error you mean an error that plod wouldn’t say a dickiebord to a motorist over despite that a motor would present far greater potential for harm and the occupent would not be threatened harm unlike the person on the bike. Rather be safe and not present any danger to the public than obeying a motor traffic rule that puts you at increase chance of harm as proven by the deaths and SI on the roads in those very circumstances, no way would I cede my safety particularly when the constable is acting against his sworn oath. The constable was wrong and discriminatory, the cyclist should not obey the discriminatory advice to lower his safety.END!
The system IS a mockery and those that swear an oath to uphold the law are a mockery and making a mockery of the monarch they are representing.
Rules/legislation is NOT law, there was no victim, statistics prove there would have been no victim in the circumstances, unlike carrying a knife which does have a massive increased chance of their being a victim and in any case it isn’t against the law to carry a knife
To sit quietly and never question rules/law is wrong, it is your public duty as a citizen to question the law when laws are unjust and/or make a mockery of a fair and just society!
mattsccm wrote:
Things that you have made up without any evidence:
1. That the rider made an error (rather than selectively placing himself in the safest road position)
2. That the rider’s attitude aggravated things (he seems remarkably courteous in the video)
3. That the rider showed poor manners
4. That the rider has a chip on his shoulder
“Seems as if most people are spouting about something that isn’t visible. Opinion maybe.” Indeed.
1. That the rider made an
1. That the rider made an error (rather than selectively placing himself in the safest road position)
an illegal position actually.
nicmason wrote:
It is permitted to disregard road signs and markings in exigent circumstances, e.g. one could pull through a red to allow an emergency services vehicle to pass, one could swerve over a double white “no overtaking” line to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who had fallen into the road. If the officer had attempted to charge the cyclist with a breach of the law, I’d say there would be a good chance the cyclist would be exculpated in court (if the CPS agreed to bring the case, which they wouldn’t) on the grounds that he only crossed the line in order to avoid the possibility of being crushed by a left-turning HGV. The officer himself clearly realized that he couldn’t charge on that or he would have done so; cross at being “cheeked” (as he would see it, aka spoken to logically and reasonably) by the cyclist he decided to pull a total BS “I can smell marijuana” justification (how come none of the three officers who could smell it couldn’t a minute later? How come they could smell it at all when the cyclist wasn’t carrying any?) for harassing the cyclist.
Your determination to blame the victim in this incident, alongside your other posts, speaks volumes about your racist character.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
If you ever get it together to read back you’ll see I wasn’t refrerring to the original incident but to a subsequent post. But I’m glad for you it speaks volumes. If Mr and Mrs twat ever had a baby you’d be it.
nicmason wrote:
Oh dear me. You’ve made rather a chump of yourself there, my little racist chum. The comment that you quoted:
“1. That the rider made an error (rather than selectively placing himself in the safest road position)”
was written by me, and you directly responded to it:
“an illegal position actually.”
Nothing to do with any subsequent post, you were directly responding to my comment on the incident. Perhaps you should “get it together to read back” before exposing yourself as a complete fool.
Brilliant comment about Mr & Mrs Twat though, gosh I bet Oscar Wilde wishes he’d thought of that one!
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Here are some exclamation marks for you subsequent posts !!!!!!
Here are some exclamation marks for you subsequent posts !!!!!!
[/quote]
You might want to learn to type and/or write properly before criticising the literary style of others. It makes you look rather stupid otherwise, and as you’ve already outed yourself as a bigotted racist your image could do without any further tarnishing, one feels.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
You might want to learn to type and/or write properly before criticising the literary style of others. It makes you look rather stupid otherwise, and as you’ve already outed yourself as a bigotted racist your image could do without any further tarnishing, one feels.
[/quote]
Does one feel that ?
mattsccm wrote:
You seem to be if the view that police are infallible. Fortunately, many photographers did not take that view and managed to get changes made to the way they were treated over taking pictures in public spaces but over zealous officers.
Smelling canabis/drugs is not
Smelling canabis/drugs is not sufficient grounds for a search, a recent police paper shows that it has zero bearing on whether someone has drugs or not and has a very low chance of the person being in posession, that with others in the direct vicinity it would be impossible to be specific in terms of which person the smell was coming from. That they did not search the others and had no grounds other than a ‘smell’ which could have come fro anywhere and was a lie in any case makes it clear it was racially motivated to my mind.
Even the police college makes it clear as to how cracked up the S&S was and didn’t remotely meet the threshold for doing so vis- a vis the guidelines https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/stop-and-search/legal/legal-basis/
if they had walked past him/group initially they would have smelt it amongst them so why didn’t they act on that in the first instance instead of waiting until he’d told them he wasn’t moving to reduce his safety?
Additionally they acted in a discriminatory manner contrary to their sworn oaths, as no way in hell would they apply same actions to a motorist whose front part of the vehicle was in front of the solid white line and indeed they uphold the fact that many drivers enter ASLs illegally ognoring the foirst stop line in any case. The old bollocks about well waiting traffic etc is just that, absolute bollocks, you should wait behind the first solid white line if the road is not clear ahead to exit safely, nope, they’ll sit in the ASL and then when the rest of the pricks have gone through on red because they also didn’t obey the law mr/mrs I don’t give a @@@@ sits there taking valuable space from people on bikes. Will plod do owt, will they @@@@!
The problem is that too many are like this, I’ve met a few on my travels in car, all fecking power tripping idiots who don’t know the law or simply make up ‘laws’ to try bully you (like threatening arrest for not having a driving licence on your person, that was a good one!). Not on bike thus far though had one plastic plod telling me to get off my bike when I was cycling on a road that has no signs on it to say it’s one way (it never has had any) and I was dismounting anyway, so I shouted back at “who do you think you are shouting at!” threatened to ticket me and I told her to go get a real cuntsable and I’d be in the bank while she was waiting for them to turn up!
Absolute bollocks. Why stop
Absolute bollocks. Why stop anybody for smelling of weed- there are so many much more severe crimes going on right now that the police say they don’t have time for e.g. burglaries, car crime, etc, so why do they have time for stop and search for someone smelling of weed?
As for the “going over the line”, to stop someone and comment on that is really dramatic. You see so many cars, and bikes stopping either a few inches or feet over the line, and at the end of the day is it that serious or causing anybody any harm or danger? Most peopl would agree the answer is “No”.
Next time Cressida Dick says they need more police I cannot really take it seriously and this kind of behaviour does not do her cause any justice.
I’m amazed ‘Godwins law’ hasn
I’m amazed ‘Godwins law’ hasn’t been invoked on this yet…
It looks like a dodgy case of stop and search to me…the police aren’t perfect…I was once nicked for swearing (not at a copper – just in the general vicinity) and then they tried charging me with drunk and disorderly (stone cold sober) – apparently the copper had a reputation for dodgy arrests and it was laughted out of court. Most coppers are great and do a crackin’ job though – in the face of a hell of a lot of crap. The cyclist did nothing unlawful or against the highway code.
Three pages of posts; is
Three pages of posts; is institutional racism in the police the new helmet thread?
The Met police ban on XR was
The Met police ban on XR was declared unlawful.
That’s not just some uptight street bobby, that’s the Commisioner getting it wrong.
The one thing that is clear
The one thing that is clear to me is that the gentleman on the bike was being detained for the offense of “Contempt of Cop”. This is a serious offense. No Law Enforcement Officer will ever allow anyone to get away with “CoC”.
Beyond that, I expect that the officer has had his nose certifed as reliable. What? No? If dogs are used as evidence in an investigation here in the USA they must be a certified investigation dog. They have to correctly smell the substance claimed something like 100 times with no false positives allowed.
So, if the officer can’t do that (and unless he is a dog or some other animal which is often used to detect things by smell he can’t) then he should face some kind of disciplinary action.
Dangerous Dan wrote:
Even an indication by a drugs dog is not in itself/on its own grounds justification in the UK for a stop and search, this is mentioned in the link I put up earlier. There has to be other factors involved that make it ‘reasonable suspicion’. Well that’s the formal/cop school version, what actually happens is something completely different as we see and many people experience.
I’ve had the I think you have been drinking because apparently my eyes were glazed/red, which was a blatent lie, it was 1am and I’d just driven 3 hours (to within 400m of home) but I didn’t feel tired nor presume look tired, I checked in the mirror a minute or so later, because I always have a proper afternoon sleep before travelling late at night. This all came about because plod were bored and then they started making stuff up about speeding, screeching tyres and the rest. Asking them to produce evidence from their video camera when I pointed out they’d actually not indicated and gone over the mini rbt instead of around it like I had done and that doing in excess of the speed limit in a large estate car without making the tyres squeel would be pretty much impossible and that the car can’t do 90 degreee turns as the copper tried to also make out had occured, another matter he would not show on his pig mobile’s camera.
Some coppers are okay, too many of them are bent, power crazed tossers, I expect it’s similar in the US, except they get guns and from what I’ve seen are less inclinded to listen to reason before getting (very) heavy handed and then covering their arses with lies/bullshit which the police force then back to the hilt, particularly when it comes to BAME citizens.
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
When I worked for a local engineering company, three people from the shop floor left to join the police; I didn’t trust any of them.
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:
This kind of incident does nothing good for the Law Enforcement community. It just pisses people off.
I have had the same crap here in the US. Once I was stopped by a city cop when I was driving home from a regional “Fire Investigation Team” meeting which had been held in a State Police office building.
I was driving a Volvo 740 Estate (station wagon), and wearing my Fire Captain’s uniform. I am an observant Jew so the LEO saw a guy with a beard (trimmed so my SCBA mask could seal) who was wearing a yarmulke, but I don’t think that was the cause. He was just a lying ass on a fishing expedition.
Some LEOs I have worked with on scene have been wonderful. But unfortunately I have a bit of a list of incidents where an LEO interfered with the Fire Service in some way. Some LEO’s are not able to accept input beyond “Yes sir, sorry sir, please forgive me sir…” even when it comes from someone like a Fire Service officer.
This incident needs to be looked at closely both by the Police and by a non-LEO agency. From the description and video it may have been a racial incident, or it may have been a cop who does not play nicely with the general public. Either of those needs to be dealt with.
Well this all seems to have
Well this all seems to have escalated quickly.
Good to see the cycling community, like the rest of the country, has a smattering of good old fashioned racisits (and always has had by the way).
I have witnessed many people stopped by police in London while riding their bikes and committing, what many here would perceive as, minor traffic offences. Funnily enough, bearing in mind the demographics of the population, most where “white”, yet I’ve never witnessed any being accused of “smelling of marijuana” and searched in the street.
Strange really as most of them weren’t wearing skin tight lycra and could have all sorts of substances secreted around their bodies. Most of them fitted my sterotype of “pot smokers” as we called them back in the day.
This lycra clad chap on the other hand could only have had his gear in one or two places and the officer didn’t search there did he?
I’m always astonished at the lengths some people will go to deny the bleeding obvious. This was clearly an officer who decided to teach the gobby black guy a lesson (I say gobby because the officer clearly believes that black people should be seen and not heard).
If you believe this incident wasn’t racially motivated you are part of the problem not the solution.
Legin wrote:
Just clicking like isn’t enough for this comment – very well said, sir or madam. It is disheartening to see that racists and those who defend them are obviously part of the cycling community, but the relative numbers of likes and the balance of comments on this thread hopefully shows that the neanderthals are fighting a losing battle.
Great stuff guys
Bogbrush
Great stuff guys
Bogbrush
May I add my name to the list
May I add my name to the list of commenters who were disgusted at reading of this incident. it is a sad reflection of society that a Police officer sworn to uphold the law without favour should behave in such a manner – I bike in the Philippines, the colour of my biking friends range from Black, Brown, White and all colours inbetween, we are largely ignored by the police. The only time a biker gets stopped is because he is riding a motorbike with no helmet and with flipflops, idiots in extreemis! Serious bikers of our kind where shoes and helmets. Others generaly the poor who bike for transport only usualy dont. – I further feel its a sad reflection on uk society that our black brothere have found it neccessary to form a black cyclist club – when we bleed is not our blood red? – The officer looks like a right scruffy git, along with his odious nature.
Retired British Army Medic – Mountain Bike Enthusiast – Anti Theist.
BritbikerinPh wrote:
[i]without fear or favour[/i]. The difference is important here.
There’s no need to worry
There’s no need to worry about the MET, I mean it’s not as though the police go around scrawling Nazi symbols….
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/25/swastika-was-scrawled-in-area-of-police-station-accessible-only-to-staff
hawkinspeter wrote:
“The incident was recorded as a faith hate crime” ? Does that mean Nazism is regarded as a ‘faith’? Seems a bit odd.
My memory of the ’70s is of the Met being riddled with both racism and corruption. I had the impression things have improved a lot in both respects, but I wonder what the truth is with regard to racism? My sense is some parts of the police have changed a lot, but a significant segment is exactly the same as it’s always been.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I note this was done in an area open only to police officers and staff (ie not police officers) So you think all the police and staff in Edmonton got together to draw a swastika in a place only they could go.
Isn’t your comment an example of the anti police bias I see on here a lot
nicmason wrote:
Why is it anti-police bias?
The graffiti was ‘in an area open only to police officers and staff’. So, an area not open to the general public and open only to police officers or police employees, who one would presume to have all been vetted for nasty tendencies.
nicmason wrote:
What?
This is anti-Nazi bias and the fact that you are conflating the two speaks volumes about your priorities. You seem to believe that every single police officer is completely above the law and that the public has no right to criticise them for having racist views.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Not at all. I’m sure there a re a few racist police officers or police staff and when they come to light they are dealt with.
nicmason wrote:
“Dealt with” for some values of “dealt with”. Not only did they not find the culprit, but they didn’t inform the IOPC.
Olisa said: “I’m surprised it was not referred. You refer something to the IOPC where there is likely to be reputational damage, damage to public confidence or potential operational culpability.
“I am really surprised the Met has not dealt with it as robustly as I would have expected for an organisation that takes hate crime and integrity seriously.”
nicmason wrote:
Why the pro-police bias?
Clearly this symbol had to be drawn by an employee of the Metropolitan police. You don’t consider that an issue?
There’s been a great deal of evidence over the decades that many cops in the met are racist, though my own personal experiences of witnessing it all date from the ’80s (haven’t had many interactions with them since) and I can believe things have improved recently, probably because the society they recruit from has changed.
But I don’t feel they have earned the kind of blind faith you seem to have in them, so I have to put that down to your bias.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Probably going a bit off topic this being a cycling magazine but I would say I don’t have blind faith but I do have a sense of reality. In this case one individual probably did that in a building where quite possibly hundreds of different people pass every day. Its unacceptable but to then continue on to The Met is Racist is not true except to the extent that it is a reflection of society which is racist.
nicmason wrote:
The Met has certainly had issues in the past with being institutionally racist and to hand-wave that as being a reflection of society is obviously the wrong way to deal with it. What concerns me is that the Met don’t seem to think that it is important – they didn’t even report it to the IOPC.
The other aspect that is worrying is what kind of workplace is it when racist employees feel empowered enough to put up a swastika? Certainly, there’s nowhere that I’ve worked where that would even occur to people that it could happen – yet we have it right in the heart of the Met.
It seems to me that the police are such a tight-knit group that they feel honour bound to defend each other even when some of their colleagues are indefensible. Your accusation of “anti-police bias” when I pointed to a factual piece of reporting is a symptom of this kind of problem.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Maybe you should get out of your woke bubble a bit more. I’ve worked in many places where racism sexism etc are all alive and kicking.
nicmason wrote:
So what’s your point? We should accept racism in our key public institutions because it exists in the worst parts of society?
Also, I don’t know what “woke bubble” is supposed to mean, but it sounds like the sort of thing a bellend would say.
“There’s nowhere that I’ve
“There’s nowhere that I’ve worked where that would even occur to people that it could happen”
Thats what you said.
I’ve worked in plenty of paces where it would occur to people and could happen and the nature of my work is that I have worked in a lot of places.
nicmason wrote:
Raise your standards. I can’t imagine it happening anywhere I’ve worked, and if anyone did try anything like that and was identified they’d be gone in a heartbeat.
vonhelmet]
it’s what’s outside a wilfully-ignorant bubble, ie the rest of the world.
nicmason wrote:
The Met has certainly had issues in the past with being institutionally racist and to hand-wave that as being a reflection of society is obviously the wrong way to deal with it. What concerns me is that the Met don’t seem to think that it is important – they didn’t even report it to the IOPC.
The other aspect that is worrying is what kind of workplace is it when racist employees feel empowered enough to put up a swastika? Certainly, there’s nowhere that I’ve worked where that would even occur to people that it could happen – yet we have it right in the heart of the Met.
It seems to me that the police are such a tight-knit group that they feel honour bound to defend each other even when some of their colleagues are indefensible. Your accusation of “anti-police bias” when I pointed to a factual piece of reporting is a symptom of this kind of problem.
— nicmason Maybe you should get out of your woke bubble a bit more. I’ve worked in many places where racism sexism etc are all alive and kicking.— hawkinspeter
I don’t think that anyone here is disputing that there are lots of (work)places where “racism sexism etc are all alive and kicking”.
If I’ve misunderstood you then I apologise, but it seems that your response is just to be resigned to it rather than complaining about or actually doing something about it.
And, based on this thread and other comments you’ve made on other threads, you seem willing to defend the police no matter what.
Stop and search is held up as an example of institutional racism and there are many others. The story that this article was about – remember that? – was about a black cyclist being ‘punishment searched’ because he didn’t kow-tow quickly enough. I’m afraid that I do believe that if he had been white, this incident would not have happened.
I think you have difficulty grasping that lots of people may have had different experiences of the police, and clearly very different from your own (assuming that you have experience with them and aren’t just defending them as a matter of principle).