What’s this page about?

Since January 2024, members of the CMG have attended Bethnal Green police station to watch randomly selected videos of stop and searches carried out in the past month. These videos, which the CMG is supposed to view monthly, have been filmed on police officers’ Body-Worn Video (BWV) cameras. Since October 2024, the CMG has provided feedback on these videos using an online form, which police are expected to respond to. It is hoped this will lead to better accountability.

Due to a confidentiality agreement with the Met, the CMG is not allowed to provide identifying information about the searches. In the interests of transparency and oversight, however, we share our anonymised notes below.

If you have been subject to a stop and search in Tower Hamlets and want to speak to us in complete confidence, you can email us at our secure email: thcmg@protonmail.com Please be assured that we will not discuss anything you tell us with the police, unless you ask us to.

22 January 2024

This was our first BWV viewing. We watched three videos, of which the third was highly concerning. In none of the videos did officers ask those stopped and searched for their ethnicity. There was also no mention of the complaints process.

First video: In this video, an officer arrived to address an anti-social behaviour call. She came across three men who agreed to move on. Despite their compliance, the officer decided to stop and search them because she saw a cannabis grinder. During the search, the officer took out the bank card of one individual and read their name; this is something the CMG raised as a point of concern as people have a right during a stop and search not to give officers their names. The officer also took another individual’s phone and asked who the child was on the phone’s screensaver/background image and if the person had children. That was inappropriate and not related to a drugs search.

Second video: In this video, which concerned a vehicle stop leading to a stop and search, spurious grounds were given for the stop and search: smell of cannabis, the area being a known drugs area, and it took a long time for the car to stop. Those first two grounds are flimsy (smell of cannabis can no longer be used as a standalone ground), and the footage did not show how long the car took to stop.

In addition to the weak grounds for the stop and search, the officer did not give the stopped individual reasons for the initial vehicle stop which, it transpired, was because the car showed up as not insured. Although the person who was stopped gave their car insurance details, the officer still said they would report him. The written record of the stop and search was also inaccurate; it stated things the person didn’t say and stated that he refused to give his ethnicity when he wasn’t asked.

Third video: In this video, officers chased down a 14-year-old child who they accused of trying to steal a moped (the child was on foot). They subjected him to excessive use of force including red dotting with a Taser, an arm lock, a head lock, ground restraint, and use of handcuffs. Despite knowing that he was a minor, they used rude and inappropriate language, including telling him: “you can fucking breathe” when the child said he couldn’t breathe during restraint, “shut up”, “you stupidly ran in front of a fucking bus”, and “can’t even do your jacket up properly”.

The behaviour of the officer who used force seemed completely disproportionate given he thought the child had attempted to steal a moped and did not think he was armed.

The officers, who were in plainclothes, additionally failed to adequately identify themselves to the young person, insulted members of the public, telling one to “bugger off”, and appeared to treat at least one member of the public who was of colour differently to a white member of the public.

The CMG raised a complaint about this and was told that it is subject to an internal investigation by Tower Hamlets police. The CMG was told by both the police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct that its members lack the status of complainants so cannot actually make complaints or have oversight of the ongoing internal investigation. The CMG is challenging this within the Met and MOPAC.

February 2024

The CMG did not have a viewing this month as a new inspector, Thomas Vie, took over and requested some time to get up to speed with processes.

13 March 2024

In this viewing, the CMG watched two videos.

First video: the CMG had concerns that the officer inadvertently obscured his BWV during parts of the search. The officer stated that the grounds for the search were that the person’s eyes were glazed and the officer could smell cannabis on him. The smell of cannabis can no longer be used as a standalone ground and attempting to bolster it with something as subjective as someone’s eyes being glazed - particularly when they did not seem to look glazed - is concerning. The CMG was also concerned that an officer looked at the individual’s mobile phone (which happened out of sight of the BWV).

Second video: In this video, there were three officers and three individuals, all of whom had handcuffs used against them. The individual being searched in the video we saw was not told he would be handcuffed or why, he just was. The officer was sarcastic and dismissive towards him, telling him “stop running your mouth” and at one point laughed at the person being searched to show he didn’t believe them. The officer also grabbed one person’s arm when that person, who was already handcuffed, took a few steps away. The BWV also stopped prematurely.

4 April 2024

In this viewing, the CMG watched three videos. The notes from this viewing are being written up on 17 February 2025 so these entries will unfortunately lack the detail of other entries.

First video: This related to a traffic control stop. The officer followed GO WISELY, and the grounds for the stop matched those recorded in the written record. The officer showed appropriate rapport and was calm and respectful to the person being searched. The officer checked their understanding and offered a copy of the stop and search record.

Second video: The officer gave appropriate grounds for the search but did not show their warrant card. The CMG member noted that they could not match the video to the written record, which they discussed with the police at the viewing. The officer did use handcuffs on the person being searched but answered questions appropriately, and no de-escalation was required. The officer failed to tell the searched person of their entitlement to a copy of the stop and search record.

Third video: The CMG member noted that the officer could have adopted a less aggressive tone and that he should have been clearer in giving the reasons for the search as he rushed through the grounds. He did, however, follow GO WISELY. The CMG member felt the officer did not attempt to make the searched young person feel at ease and that the officer could have been a bit more personal, rather than just seeking one-word answers from the young person. The officer did offer the young person a QR code around stop and search but they did not describe it particularly well to them.

13 May 2024

In this viewing, the CMG watched two videos.

First video: This was a stop for weapons. The officers said the individual matched the description of a suspect who had been seen with a knife. The person they apprehend does seem to try and avoid the officers when he sees them but it is unclear why or what they might have said to him, as the audio was not working for the initial part of the video. The officers, of which there were at least six on the scene, pulled the individual to the ground and handcuffed him without explaining the reasons why. The individual repeatedly asked why he was being searched and/or why he had been arrested, but the officers did not reply. All of this was concern to the CMG, as well as the fact that two of the officers had Tasers and were said to be with armed response.

The officers were rude to the individual telling him that he liked “the attention” and had a bad attitude. When the individual asked for the search record, he was told to give his name to obtain it (you do not need to give your name during a stop and search). No knife was found on the individual.

Second video: The written record that accompanied this video stated that the person stopped had been driving and was witnessed overtaking six other cars and jumping a red light. It stated that the driver was “hostile and defensive”, kept putting his hands in his pockets despite being asked not to, and was known for supplying drugs.

In the video, however, officers do not mention the person overtaking six cars. The officers were aggressive in tone to the individual who remained very calm and apologised. Despite this and despite there being three officers, they handcuffed him and ignored his requests to twice take the handcuffs off, despite acknowledging that he was being “calm and compliant”. The person was in handcuffs for nine minutes before they were removed.

As part of the search, the officers also checked the man’s car, which had a Palestine flag in it. It was of concern to the CMG that the officers then asked the man if he had been at a protest. This was not relevant to the stop and search and is concerning given how the Met police has responded to some protesters. The officers appeared to also look at his debit cards and possibly read documents that were in the car.

27 June 2024

In this viewing, the CMG watched four videos.

First video: The CMG did not understand why a stop and search was used here. The police had been told that a person/persons had seen a man cycle up to a woman holding a broom handle, and the allegation was made that he might have threatened her. The written record for this search notes that the area is well known for bicycle theft.

The police did not tell the person why they were stopping and searching him (failed to give grounds) and they also handcuffed him without explaining why. Their tone was rude and disbelieving, patronisingly telling him not to get upset and referring to “normal members of the public” (the implication being that he was not normal). There was no evidence in the footage that they had spoken to the woman the man had allegedly threatened.

Ultimately, the officers arrested the man for breach of bail and failure to attend court. They did not find anything during the search. It was also not clear whether they cautioned him.

Second video: The written record stated that the search took place in an area known for anti-social behaviour and drug use. The officers claimed they had smelled cannabis and seen the searched person dart behind a wall.

The video started after the alleged darting. What concerned the CMG was that officers immediately handcuffed the man, despite him being compliant and there being several officers present. They also said he had walked off, rather than darting behind a wall as stated in the written record. The officers also asked for the man’s ID and address without explaining that it was optional.

Third video: The written record for this search stated that the person had been searched as part of a proactive patrol under a particular operation. It stated that the person had been “loitering” on a wall in an area known as a drug dealing hotspot and that he had said he lived in a nearby hostel, which officers found suspicious as he could have been at the hostel rather than on the wall.

The person appeared vulnerable and the officers’ grounds were patently weak. There was nothing wrong about the person sitting on the wall and nothing was found on him.

Fourth video: In the written record for this video, officers stated that they stopped the individual because he was seen waiting in part of a park and, when asked why, said he was waiting for a friend but could not name them. In the video, however, the officers made no mention of him not being able to name his friend.

The man admitted to waiting to pick up drugs and the officers then, and inappropriately, offered him money to become an informant and to say what his dealer looked like. The man refused.

25 July 2024

During this viewing, the CMG watched three videos.

First video: In the written record for this video, police stated that they had seen a group of men with vehicles inhaling nitrous oxide/laughing gas. The stopped individual was allegedly seen to walk away with a balloon also blowing away.

In the video, an officer handcuffs the man and tells him to face the wall. When the man turns to ask the officer something, the officer threatens him with ground restraint if he does not stay facing the wall. The man is calm and compliant and there is no explanation given for the use of force (handcuffs being a use of force). The officer maintained a hostile tone towards him, despite the person admitting to doing a balloon and apologising.

The individual asked if the officer could move the handcuffs to the front of his body (he was handcuffed behind his back) and told him that they were too tight. The officer refused. Another officer was heard saying to another stopped individual “wind your neck in and shut up”. An officer also answered someone’s phone without their consent.

Second video: The audio was hard to hear for this search. In it, police had pulled over a car and found laughing gas canisters in it. The stopped person admitted to having something (my notes are unclear) and apologised. The police behaved well and were respectful to him. This is the only stop and search the CMG has seen to date where it has not had criticisms.

Third video: This was another example of where the written record for the search did not match the BWV. This is concerning as while written records for BWV are routinely checked by supervising officers, the BWV itself is not. In the video, officers stop three vulnerable individuals. The woman that they stop discloses that she is an alcoholic and recovering drug addict and is polite and compliant with the searching officer. Despite this, the officer handcuffed her and gave the inadequate reason that she did so as she does not know what the woman “is like”. The officer did not go through GOWISELY (information that should be given during a search) and exposed the woman’s bra without granting her privacy. It was clear that the woman was vulnerable and it did not seem as though the officer knew how to handle that. The woman repeatedly said she was anxious, including about being seen by her nearby hostel workers who might evict her. Despite this, the officer did not provide her with any clarity or reassurance, including about the checks they were running on her.

August 2024

We did not have a BWV viewing this month as the police were unable to faciliate one.

25 September 2024

During this viewing, the CMG watched five videos. The volunteer who attended the viewing no longer volunteers with the CMG and so questions that arise from the viewing unfortunately cannot be asked of him.

First video: According to the written stop and search record, a person who was a regular substance user was stopped in a local park by officers.

Officers had his hands on his head, which the searching officer secured [Note from the CMG Chair: I was not present at this viewing, but it sounds as though handcuffs were used. I am not clear on what grounds]. The officer introduced himself and his station and recited the grounds and reasons for the search, which appeared to just be recited. He could have checked with the subject to see whether he understood the information he was hearing. The camera of the supporting officer filmed the video, and it was difficult to hear the audio as the search took place by a busy road. The search appeared to be lawful, with the officer offering the person a copy of the stop and search record. There was nothing found.

Second video: According to the written stop and search record, the subject was stopped under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The video started with the officers walking up a road, then suddenly turning back and approaching a man. The officers said they smelt cannabis and noticed the man was holding a joint and that they were stopping him under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The searching officer introduced herself and explained why the person was stopped. She could, however, have better checked with the subject to see if he understood what was happening.

Third video: There were two searches in this video. The written record stated that two males began acting suspiciously when they saw the officers. The men split up, and the searching officers caught up with one of them. The searching officer identified himself and gave the grounds for the search, which the subject disagreed with. I was not able to see the search in its entirety because the officer whose BWV we were watching decided to leave the other officers. He then came across the second subject, who he decided to search. This person expressed unhappiness with the search. Nothing was found.

Fourth video: Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officers (THEOs) had stopped a man in a block of flats who they believed to be acting suspiciously and who had no valid reason to be there. According to them, the block may be known for drug users. The THEO relayed that to the police officer who arrived on the scene, and he believed this constituted sufficient grounds to search the subject.

Fifth video: This search was a vehicle search. Three males were in the car. [Note from the CMG Chair: The grounds for the search were regrettably not noted].

The searching officer introduced himself and his team and station. He later discussed the grounds with the subject, who consented for a search of his person and the car. The officer found a bag of cannabis during the search, which the subject admitted was his. A background check was carried out, and a community resolution was discussed.

3 October 2024

From this month, the CMG began using an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The police are now required to respond to the feedback logged in the form, and it is hoped this will lead to better accountability. The October form can be viewed here.

We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback for first video: Rated - Amber. The grounds for this search were flimsy: Essentially, the person was sat down with "known Class A drug users" in an area where the officer had stopped people for drugs before. So the ground appears to be, who the person was with and the officer's own view of the area. The officer did not identify himself, did not ask for the person's ethnicity, did not tell him how to make a complaint, did not offer him a paper copy and did not - despite possibly identifying him as a vulnerable person - tell him he did not have to give his name and DOB to the officers

Police response: I do recognised that for… the stop where the male was in a group of 4 others, [the] individual displayed vulnerabilities... [He] would have benefited from a merlin being recorded and more compassion shown around the situation he [has] found [himself] in. I have spoken with the officers to convey our obligations to consider the welfare of people we interact with and to listen more to what they are saying in order that we can help them if needed.

CMG feedback for second video: Rated - Amber. I found this search very upsetting. The person expressed several vulnerabilities that were completely disregarded. The officer was rude, dismissive and patronising. He emptied out someone's bag that likely contained all their possessions and put those items on the ground. The search was without respect for the person's dignity and without explanation and empathy. We discussed with our officers in the viewing that the officer could have explained - I need to do a thorough search and it may take some time as I recognise your bag has all your belongings in it, etc

Police response: With regards to the stop and searches I facilitated the stop which involved the male on his way to the job centre whom was homeless and had his belongings emptied. I was aware at the time that the CMG members found this difficult to watch as they were his worldly belongings, however in order for a thorough search to be conducted, all his belongings had to be emptied, and as per protocol the officers did put them back in exactly the same places they came from.

Having said that, I do recognised that for this stop… [the] individual displayed vulnerabilities. The homeless male was clearly more agitated about not getting to his appointment – a call could have been made on his behalf about why he was going to be late. [He] would have benefited from a merlin being recorded and more compassion shown around the situations [he] found [himself] in. I have spoken with the officers to convey our obligations to consider the welfare of people we interact with and to listen more to what they are saying in order that we can help them if needed.

CMG feedback for third video: Rated - Amber. The officers we watched this with [a stop and search of someone in a supermarket] explained that the officers erred by (1) carrying out a S&S on private property, rather than an arrest and s32 stop and (2) as we thought, getting involved in a civil matter. Apparently, correct process is to let shop manager ask for details and if person refuses, can then consider arrest.

Police response: As you’ve also seen the T/DC’s [trainee detective constables] have been given feedback by their street duties Sgt and I’ve also reiterated to Street Duties that they need to inform their instructors about not getting caught out in doing searches in the managers offices.

7 November 2024

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The November form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback for first video: Rated - Amber. The points I am concerned about are:
1. The male officer - while the female passenger was still polite and compliant - threatening to handcuff her and drag her out of the car. The female officer calling her "very, very aggressive" when she wasn't - which escalated things
2. The female passenger said she would not give her details. The female officer said I will take them from your driving licence. Is that allowed? This was before she said, “I will give you a community resolution so you have to give your details”
3. The officers did not properly explain that you can refuse a community resolution and what the impact of that might be
4. The female passenger admitted to using drugs, the male driver was adamant he did not. It felt disproportionate therefore to refer him to Operation Revoke, such that his driving licence will be revoked until he can prove (how?) that he's not addicted to drugs
5. This is a general point: We see handcuffing a lot and people saying the cuffs are too tight. Officers invariably say they are not but it's never seen on BWV - probably because of where the cameras are. It would greatly assist for officers to show the handcuffs
6. The female passenger also asked for her hood to be put back up repeatedly. She may have been Muslim and some greater cultural awareness could have assisted there

Police response: I viewed three searches. One search where Operation Revoke was used to stop a vehicle we had a long discussion on what Op Revoke was and this was explained to [the CMG].

CMG feedback for second video: Rated - Amber. 1. Officers were aggressive in tone at the start. 2. Officers did not explain why they immediately handcuffed the person. I think that could have helped de-escalate things

Police response: I viewed three searches...  Another stop and search involved handcuffing and the use of force was explained and the use of force form was explained.

CMG feedback for third video: Rated - Netural. I think there was some really good practice here: good tone, being polite. What we saw was good. The issue is it cut short so we don't really know what happened. I felt the handcuffing could have been explained but my co-member observed that it was. I think if this had continued and ended in the same way, it would have been a green.

Police response: I viewed three searches... The final stop and search [the CMG] praised the way the officers dealt with the encounter. I ensured this was fed back to the officers and the line manager. 

 Note from CMG: This level of feedback by the police is not what we are aiming for.

19 December 2024

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The December form can be viewed here. We provided the following feedback on each video and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback for first video: Rated - Amber. Definitely felt like an unnecessary use of force after seeing something in the mouth [the searched person tried to hide drugs in his mouth]. Threw to the ground quite aggressively and shouted at to "spit it out". Seemed like a risk of choking. Seemed like the health and safety of the person being searched wasn't prioritised urgently. Took until 26 minutes until 3rd officer suggested it was probably wise to go to hospital before searching. We would like to know what officers are taught/told in Tower Hamlets around swallowing/things in mouths.

Police response: The first was one of an arrest of a male with drugs in his mouth. The panel questions a number of aspects – use of force and the time taken to attend hospital. I reviewed the clip and was happy with the use of force, the grounds for this are covered on alternative forms and I did not believe this to be excessive. In relation to the hospital, the suspect was taken to hospital at the earliest opportunity, the officers on the street had to wait for transport as they were on foot. This wasn’t an excessive time to wait and the officers maintained communication and observation with the male at all times. In relation to the drugs in the mouth I have sought best policy around actions and current training so that this can be shared with the teams as a refresher to those that may come across these circumstances.

CMG feedback for second video: Rated - Neutral. We didn't see an example of good practice but equally there was nothing of concern to note. Hence, neutral. No feedback for the officers

Police response: This was a plain clothes unit completing stop and search of three persons. There were no issues with this at all, the officers were polite and firm with the suspects detained and searched and explained what they were doing and why.