Pimlico Plumbers has posted a video to Twitter calling for help in tracking down a cycling “criminal” who allegedly kicked out at a wing mirror on the company founder’s Bentley – but a number of users of the social media network have called out the footage as fake, with one accusing the firm of staging a “false flag” attack to whip up resentment against bike riders.
WANTED: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS CRIMINAL? ??
We are appealing for assistance in tracking down a criminal who attacked the private property of Pimlico’s Founder, Charlie Mullins, at 9:12am yesterday.
Read the full blog for further information ⬇️https://t.co/lEcyTW8j3M pic.twitter.com/Jm1il0OG1D
— Pimlico (@PimlicoPlumbers) August 21, 2020
The tweet links to a blog post published on the company’s website on Friday, the Lambeth-based company said: “We are appealing for assistance in tracking down a criminal who attacked the private property of Pimlico’s Founder, Charlie Mullins, at 9:12am yesterday, Thursday 20th August.
“As can be seen in the footage below, the thug came round the corner before deliberately crossing over to the wrong side of the road. He coasted closely past Charlie’s Bentley which was parked directly outside our HQ on Sail Street, ignoring the 1 metre rule. The man then clearly raised his foot and attacked the wing mirror, causing significant damage.
“We are on the lookout for this person, and have already reported this unacceptable legal breach to the police. We have a zero tolerance policy for attacks on private property at Pimlico and are not taking this matter lightly.
“If anyone recognises this man, please contact Pimlico’s Head of Security, Steve Walker, by calling 0207 928 8888,” it added.
“Alternatively please contact the police and quote the crime reference no. 1222248/20.”
However, many Twitter users – including Mike van Erp, also known as Cycling Mikey, who earlier this month filmed one of the company’s drivers using a mobile phone at the wheel – suggested that the incident may have been staged, raising a number of concerns about the footage.
Apparently shot on three separate CCTV cameras, the footage – some of which has been slowed down, presumably for dramatic effect – shows a helmeted cyclist apparently kicking out at the Bentley as he passes it.
While, predictably, the Twitter post has attracted the usual anti-cyclist comments, many have questioned the veracity of the footage, with van Erp suggesting it may have been a publicity stunt by the firm.
Some have suggested this is a publicity stunt, a false flag operation. Where is the picture of the broken mirror? Why is Charlie parked illegally on a blind corner? Given recent history of Pimlico/Charlie and his cycle hatred, and the resulting public backlash, I’m sceptical too. https://t.co/GH1OCyTN78
— ⚫ CyclingMikey aka Bike Gandalf ?????? (@MikeyCycling) August 21, 2020
Secondly I have a crime report reference from 4th August 2020 and that number is 6532437/20, whilst the reference claimed on the Pimlico Plumbers website is 1222248/20, supposedly from 20th Aug. @PimlicoPlumbers I call bullsh*t on your story.
— ⚫ CyclingMikey aka Bike Gandalf ?????? (@MikeyCycling) August 21, 2020
Others pointed out that the wing mirror itself appeared undamaged after the cyclist had passed, while the lack of reaction from the man shown crossing the road in the video has also raised concerns about the veracity of the footage.
Wing mirror still seems to be attached after the rider has passed, too.
— Stuart Helmer (@stuarthelmer) August 21, 2020
How about the pedestrian crossing infront of the car at the time too. Hardly reacts to seeing an alleged crime do they.
— Doug Mcfarlane (@DougMcfarlane3) August 21, 2020
The way the vehicle was parked also sparked suspicions, as did the fact the cyclist is wearing a helmet – not unknown among users of Santander Cycles, but rare enough to raise doubts.
Anyone else spot the cones at the front of the parked car so that there’s a clear shot from the front of the car, otherwise chances are one of the two vans further along the road would have blocked that view?
Why where they there if not to stop parking?— Graham Wickenden (@WickendenGraham) August 22, 2020
Just in defence of the cyclist, whoever they are – my partner and I often take cycle helmets when we go out on Santander bikes. I think for people eho leave their house planning on hiring one, it’s not terribly uncommon to take a helmet. Less likely for impromptu use though
— public void Matt (@stylesm) August 22, 2020
Another Twitter user suggested that the video had been staged to stoke up anti-cycling sentiment in response to the footage van Erp had captured of the company’s driver three weeks ago.
I would say they know exactly what they are doing here, and the potential dangerous consequences to someone’s health for life. This is just revenge for being slighted when one of their drivers was reported for bad driving. This is how gang turf wars operate. We see you Pimlico.
— Jason Judge – Love Life, #PutAMaskOnIt (@JasonDJudge) August 23, 2020
Finally, this Twitter user expressed surprised that there were no images of the damaged wing mirror itself.
Why haven’t we seen a still image of the damages wing mirror ? Hmmmmm .
— Ben (@BendyBen999) August 21, 2020
Cycling Mikey’s footage of the Pimlico Plumbers driver using his phone while in his vehicle, by the way, was filmed just days after the company toned down a blog post written by its PR team, but purporting to come from Mullins himself, which spoke of “cycle fascists” together with a mocked up TfL image that accused cyclists of “taking f**king liberties.”
We have approached Pimlico Plumbers for their response to the concerns raised about the video.
26 thoughts on “Video: Pimlico Plumbers appeal to catch cycling ‘criminal’ – but get accused of faking footage”
Can anyone at pimloco
Can anyone at pimloco plumbers rewrite their tweet so it reaches at least the level of language expected of a ten year old. Talk about mangling the lingo.
Bentley must fit incredibly strong wing mirrors as that one didn’t even move when “significant damage” was caused to it.
i can see the guy’s right
i can see the guy’s right foot is raised as he passes, but sadly CCTV hasn’t in my view captured the moment of truth. The overblown language, the lack of any reaction by the guy walking past makes this highly suspicious and odd.
No evidence of any contact
No evidence of any contact with the wing mirror, so obviously it didn’t happen.
anybody got a link for the funding campaign to buy the cyclist a beer ?
As has been said it looks
As has been said it looks staged with no actual video of the wing mirror being damaged and no photos of the damaged wing mirror.
This bit caught my eye from PP;
” He coasted closely past Charlie’s Bentley which was parked directly outside our HQ on Sail Street, ignoring the 1 metre rule.”
1 metre rule? Are they attempting to refer to the minimum close passing distance of 1.5m and do they think it is reciprocal, which it isn’t.
I could be generous and say they’re being ignorant of the Highway Code but on Pimlico Plumbers’ past performance they’re not only applying their Myway Code but even faking criminal acts so as to apply their own system of justice.
Nothing to do with the
Nothing to do with the Highway Code – he’s worried about his car catching Covid-19.
“He coasted closely past
“He coasted closely past Charlie’s Bentley which was parked directly outside our HQ on Sail Street, ignoring the 1 metre rule. The man then clearly raised his foot and attacked the wing mirror, causing significant damage.
“We are on the lookout for this person, and have already reported this unacceptable legal breach to the police.”
What’s the 1m rule??
Claiming significant damage without providing evidence.
Unacceptable legal breach… presumably of “the 1m rule”?
Can’t the police confirm or
Can’t the police confirm or deny a crime has been reported? Road.cc can you follow it up?
“Alternatively please contact
“Alternatively please contact the police and quote the crime reference no. 1222248/20.”
If anyone does contact the police then police time will have been wasted by Plumbloco Plumbers. So I suggest that is exactly what we should do. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine. In England and Wales, one can be charged with the offence under Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967[1] when one “causes any wasteful employment of the police” by “knowingly making to any person a false report” which:
Shows that a criminal offence has been committed,
Creates apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or
Indicates that they have information material to any police inquiry.
I don’t think that’s how that
I don’t think that’s how that works. If you contact the police falsely claiming to have information relating to a case (even if that case is actually non-existent), I’m fairly sure that it would be you that would be guilty of wasting police time, by “knowingly making … a false report which … indicates that [you] have information material to [a] police inquiry”
This is a clearly false
This is a clearly false allegation of an offence by a dodgy company. Anyone familiar with reporting offences to the police will know that it has to come with photographic evidence in a case like this. There’s no evidence of an offence here, and if none was sent to the police at the time of the report then no offence was committed excpt by the people making one up. The odd thing is that the rider is identifiable- is he some company acquaintance from out of town who they think no-one will know?
Ok, first of all, the mirror
Ok, first of all, the mirror position is changed between just before contact and just after on the video so I do believe there was real contact. (although how much because he doesn’t wobble much).
Secondly, it is controlled parking on single yellows from 830:6:30, do Pimilico have special dispensation?
Thirdly, all Santander bikes ahave number plates.. what a shame that the CCTV resolution doesn’t show it.
Fourthly, he has pissed off cyclists, but he has also pissed off a lot of his staff by firing them for not returning and also other plumbers in London. So lots to choose from for the “crime”.
Right in front of the Secuity guard booth as well.
If I were staging such an
If I were staging such an incident, either to elicit sympathy or provoke antagonism, I wouldn’t use a Bentley.
He has succeeded in provoking
He has succeeded in provoking my antagonism, just not at the intended target.
Also done a great job of
Also done a great job of Streisanding it
A seriously unconvincing
A seriously unconvincing video, with several cameras but still missing the alleged impact, the cyclist kindly looks directly at one of them, and the mirror appears undamaged. If this has been reported to the police, I hope they arrest him for wasting police time, and confiscate the car as it’s been used in the commission of a crime.
I struggle to believe you
I struggle to believe you could hit a wing mirror with enough force to break it, coming up from behind it like that, maybe going the other direction you could cause a glancing blow damage to push it in,break the outer casing or cause the glass to pop up. But how with just dangling your leg out, hitting something pretty solid against the grain so to speak, you dont simply instantly fall off your bike completely or have a massive speed wobble as a result, as youve suddenly got this massive direction input from your right leg to deal with, and probably a good deal of pain to go with it, how do you do that ?
True. It hurts if you
True. It hurts if you accidentally shoulder barge the wing mirror of a van parked up on the pavement, if you go the wrong way… So, riding a bike and trying to do it?
The big mistake PP have made,
The big mistake PP have made, if indeed this is a stunt – they used the boss’s Bentley. If Charlie sent word that this was to be staged, then it’s that personal grievance that sinks it. If they’d gone for one of the vans, then it would have had more power. FWIW, I don’t think they’d ever end up being prosecuted for this egregious waste of everyone’s time, and resources – the very fact that it doesn’t supply footage of impact or debris means it’s all too nebulous for a real case to be brought – but again, that just shows how personal grievance has allowed PP to become lost in a time-wasting show of hubris. In short – that video is twenty-eight seconds of the longest own-goal attempt, known to man.
…unacceptable legal breach.
That is such a weird use of language…
brooksby wrote:
Yes; those acceptable legal breaches are so much better. Like parking on a corner, on yellow lines, not paying your employees tax and NI.
Or claiming that none of the
Or claiming that none of the people who work for you are employees to avoid sickpay.
If anyone can catch the
If anyone can catch the reference number of the cycle hire bike, Transport for London will know exactly who hired the bike at the time. I can’t see it in the footage but I am sure one of you sleuths are better than me.
Not necessarily. You can
Not necessarily. You can hire a bike with a card, no id needed. Best they could do is possibly identify the card used – but i would have thought that once they’d taken payment they wouldn’t retain this info.
The problem they have, if it
The problem they have, if it was staged, is that the suspect is so clearly identifiable. Same goes for a targeted, premeditated attack. Why would the perpetrator take no measures to hide their identity with a hoodie or balaclava?
Seems so obviously exposable if a false flag event what with Police reference number being quoted, with a potentially huge downside and possible prosecution when inevitably exposed.
My guess is this is a random attack by someone who just doesn’t like that someone else flaunts their wealth by having an expensive car.
Don’t Bentleys have automatic
Don’t Bentleys have automatic folding mirrors? If so, why not folded? (Obviously if this turns out to be genuine then I retract this bit of victim blaming, but it seems to me another thing that doesn’t quite add up…)
Absolutely Fake… look at
Absolutely Fake… look at the video around the 20 second mark, you can see the cyclist past the car – yet the wing mirror is still attached to the car with no damage to it at all… If a cyclist had kicked it the wing mirror would have folded forward and probably been hanging down by the wires for the electrical adjustment, and also the cyclist doesn’t seem to have been jarred by the impact either.
And am I the only one who finds it strange that the wing mirror is just fractionally outside the field of view of the 2nd camera, the one that would have caught the incident in all its glory?