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.

January 2025

The CMG did not have a BWV viewing this month.

February 2025

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The February 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: When the officer's badge number was requested - recording officer refused to provide 

Officer conducting stop and search on the recording officer's left used Section 50 grounds to obtain name and address off the back of smell of cannabis (?) - would this constitute sufficient grounds to request someone's personal details?

Overall, compliant stop and search assisted by compliant young people being detained and searched. Officers seemed to pester on obtaining name and address, despite them refusing and knowing they're within rights not to. Officers on the left using section 50 to demand name and address - unclear whether basis of smelling like cannabis is sufficient to exercise those powers.

Please can you answer the question posed and pass this feedback on to the officer involved via an email to the officer and their line manager in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm that this has been done, we are open to hearing the officer's response. Given the length of time that has passed, the officer may need to review the footage. Rated: Neutral (but CMG Chair's opinion is it may be an Amber if the officer wrongfully used their s.50 powers).

Police response: Feedback passed on but no response received from the officer. In response to our question, the Met said: “the smell of cannabis alone wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient grounds to use S50, but combined with other elements (in this case the time of day, the location and the circumstances around why officers had been called) the smell of cannabis can be used as part of the grounds for using S50”.

CMG feedback for second video: Officers did not state name of station, nor inform of entitlement to copy of search record. Unclear whether identity was provided - object also unclear because across search record, and this stop and search - 2 different grounds were provided/alternated between: S1 PACE (search form), and then S23 MODA.

Person detained struggled with English - officers immediately aggressive, dismissive and rude towards him. Various comments made 'you're very distrusting etc' . Also, caution at the end was given very quickly - too fast for anyone to understand

Immediate use of force and aggression by 3 officers from the outset - escalated the situation rather than calm the situation down and allow for dialogue to set out explanation. Extent of force felt disproportionate.

Section 1 PACE used and in broad way in search form - but then during stop and search, s23 was cited. Inconsistent record/use of powers.

Main concerns:

- Level of force used from the outset felt excessive and disproportionate - particularly resulting in moped toppling over.

- Dismissive/aggressive attitude by all 3 officers - one could have de-escalated. Led to confusion, waste of time.

- Grounds cited/used - section 1 PACE and section 23 MODA - both used on vague and general grounds, and inconsistently e.g. s1 used simply because they were driving a moped, and associations with that, despite the moped clearly being a delivery vehicle. And unclear on what grounds s23 was identified and set out.

Please pass this feedback on to the officer involved via an email to the officer and line manager in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm that this has been done, we are open to hearing the officer's response. Given the length of time that has passed, the officer may need to review the footage. As multiple elements of the search are flawed, the officer should be offered support from a stop and search mentor and their line manager should be asked to follow-up by reviewing their next 3 searches in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm once this has been done and note that if further searches show issues, the officer should be provided with Learning Through Reflection. The CMG expects to be kept updated on this. Rated: Amber

Police response: Feedback passed on. We received the following response from the officer’s line manager: “With regards to the use of force I feel it was proportionate in the circumstances. It wasn’t solely because the person was riding a moped, he had been indicated to stop further down the road and had failed to do so, this would have helped build grounds for the search and also to justify a higher level of force being used in order to prevent him making off and a subsequent pursuit.

“The subject was immediately obstructive in my view, hence the perceived aggression from officers, in my view it is merely taking control and dominance during a stop and search where weapons are suspected.

“The issue around the differing search power used I think stems from the fact that PC A initially starts to give GOWISELY but then PC B, who has hold of the subject, says that he will do the search. PC A states S23 MDA but PC B uses S1 PACE. Obviously search grounds are subjective so there is nothing wrong with this. PC B’s search record on Connect is consistent with the grounds given at the time. PC B shows his warrant card to the subject on two separate occasions during this encounter, firstly when approaching the male and secondly immediately prior to the search. I cannot hear him verbally give either his name or the station he is attached to however.

“I’ve looked over a few of PC B’s searches since this and none have raised any cause for concern, with that I will sit down with him next week and have an informal chat reminding him of the legal necessity around giving GOWISELY in full.”

CMG feedback on third video: Only point of feedback - whether measures could be implemented to follow up on knowledge of vulnerability

Please pass this feedback on to the officer involved via an email to the officer and line manager in line with our feedback agreement. Please confirm that this has been done, we are open to hearing the officer's response. Given the length of time that has passed, the officer may need to review the footage. Rated: Green

Police response: Feedback passed on but no response received from the officer.

March 2025

The CMG did not have a BWV viewing this month.

April 2025

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

CMG feedback on first video: Rated neutral, no feedback to pass on.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated neutral, no feedback to pass on.

CMG feedback on third video: Rated neutral, officer rushed through GOWISELY even once detained/under control - this meant search receipt point not fully set out (the "E" of GOWISELY).

Response from officer who did the stop and search: “Out of curiosity have the members of the panel had to engage in some sort of role play around stop and search to understand it or is it just a completely third party opinion? Thanks for the feedback I will note that for next time.”

CMG feedback on fourth video: Rated Amber. GOWISELY not followed - officers did not say what they were looking for

Communication was poor: Asked multiple questions that would have been more appropriate to an interview after arrested. Told him what he was saying was "bullshit". They also threatened to arrest him for stealing the car despite not having evidence it was stolen. I found the officers' faux-friendly tone quite disrespectful and patronising, it also really jarred with them then disbelieving him/being sarcastic towards him. They also made jokes to each other about him. There was a complete absence of professionalism.

Grounds fairly spurious: Police said eyes were glazed, he seemed startled and there was a smell of perfume that could be using to cover up the smell of cannabis. That is both subjective and speculative.

Response from officer who did the stop and search: “I can only apologise for my language used towards the detained male and can see how some would deem that as unprofessional. It was not directed towards the male in maliciously in any way shape or form.

“I have taken what was mentioned and will take this as feedback and positive learning in any further stops conducted.”

CMG feedback on fifth video: Rated neutral. Female officer had a good tone and was respectful - her colleague could have been more respectful. For GOWISELY please slow down and speak more clearly (this is a repeat problem for most officers). Needs to make sure her BWV camera is not obscured and it doesn't stop before interaction ends.

Response from officer who did the stop and search: “Thank you for your feedback, it’s great to know both of my stops were looked at positively, it always gives a confidence boost.

“Regarding BWV not showing full interaction – I have switched my BWV off once I was completing the checks and called my supervisor in the vehicle, away from the subject. Once this was done and I got out of the vehicle the BWV was reactivated to show the rest of the interaction (questioning under caution, explaining PCR procedures etc.). As S23 MDA has been completed on the first BWV, I would not have thought the other BWV footage would be relevant for the public eye. But just for feedback on this from my side for the future group panels – more BWV which were not uploaded onto stop and searches might exist.

“And regarding camera being partially obstructed by my jacket at times – yes, that is what cannot be avoided sometimes and it’s a part of working in plain clothes (undercover..).”

May 2025

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

CMG feedback on first video: Rated Neutral. The officer's communication was absolutely a Green. The officer was polite, friendly and respectful. He ensured the person understood what was going on and answered all of his questions. He also asked him for his ethnicity, which is rarely done. The only reason I have rated this as "Neutral" is because he forgot to tell him he was detained for the purposes of the search and we can't therefore give it a Green - GOWISELY should be followed. But I would really like to see more officers interacting with the public like this.

CMG feedback on second video: Rated Amber. The officer's tone was polite and friendly. However, I was concerned that it took 3 minutes for him to explain to the child why he had been handcuffed and was being detained. I also felt that the handcuffs were left on for too long - he was an asthmatic 15 year old who said he ran from the police because his friends did. I did not think it likely he would run off again, particularly given the police had his mobile phone and his grandmother was on the way to collect him. Lastly, it wasn't clear at all if the officers actually found anything on him besides some chocolate bars. I thought the boy's grandother asked a good question when she asked why they were holding him when he hadn't stolen anything... Could the officer please advise why they kept the boy in handcuffs and whether he had actually stolen anything? If it is the case he was believed to have stolen the chocolate bars, I would really question the proportionality of handcuffs.