What’s this page about?

Since January 2024, members of the CMG have watched randomly selected videos of stop and searches carried out in the past month in Tower Hamlets. These videos have been filmed on police officers’ Body-Worn Video (‘BWV’) cameras.

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 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The January 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 (NB: edited for clarity): This stop opened with police officers having stopped a white-seeming young male (‘YM’) based on information from a member of the public (‘the informant’). YM asked what the informant reported and was told "3 or 4 young men wearing tracksuits trying to break into the black BMW". He was searched, nothing was found. He was wearing a rolled up balaclava as a hat, his face was not in any way obscured.

The female officer asked how old he was and he rightly said he did not have to say. The female officer wrongly said he had to. The searching officer then said he suspected him of a criminal offence so he had to give his details. The officer said the fact the YM had "a balaclava and gloves" had added to his grounds. He said he would arrest him for theft from a motor vehicle if he did not give his details. YM did.

At 05:50 minutes in, the male officer says "I sort of want to nick him" because he knows they have been doing something, whether or not they have been trying to break into the vehicle. He reiterates "I want to nick him". A blonde officer says that's not enough. They agree to call the informant for further information.

The blonde officer at around 08:00 minutes in says no tools were found, a search of the area has found nothing and YM and his friends did not run. At 08:35 minutes in, the male officer speaks to the informant who says she saw a group of guys including a Black male and another 2/3 guys in tracksuits. She says she saw the Black male and another going and jumping between the BMW driver's seat, one had gloves, they were removing stuff from the car, they were removing stuff from the trunk. The male officer asked if they were recording a music video (which YM had said he was going to do), the informant said no.

The male officer says to YM the informant has seen them inside the car (she did not say she had seen YM specifically in the car/at all) and so they are going to nick him. The decision is made to arrest YM and his friends. At 10:55 minutes in, the blonde officer says, "we've not got any proof, the car is locked". The officers discuss whether the arrest should be for theft from motor vehicle or interference, they go for both. They determine that the 4th person (the Black male) must have run off.

At 12:06 minutes in, YM is arrested for theft from a motor vehicle and cautioned. The officer gave grounds as: "you're under arrest from attempted theft from a motor vehicle". The YM said this would be a wrongful arrest. The officer gave necessity for the arrest as secure evidence, prompt & effective investigation.

YM says he will bring an action for wrongful arrest. The blonde officer seems to suggest one of his group should be strip searched.

YM asked if there was footage of the theft and was told no. He was told, however, that there is an independent witness. He asked what the evidence was. He is then told he's being arrested because he doesn't have photo ID and his identity can't be verified. He points out that one of his friends, who is also being arrested, had photo ID.

The male officer tells YM: "An independent witness has seen you inside a vehicle with a balaclava and gloves on, we've arrived in a few minutes and seen you 100 yards away." Again, this is not true. YM asks: "If I was doing something illegal. Wouldn't I run?"

At 24:46, his cuffs are double locked. They have been on the entire time.

CONCERNS

I am concerned that the officer did not objectively have reasonable grounds for suspicion in order to make the arrest. In forming this view, I note that the informant described a group of people different to YM and his friends. She also said the group she saw were seen in the BMW taking items from it. The officers note the BMW they saw was locked and no items were found on YM and his friends. Officers jumped to the conclusion that YM was a suspect simply because he was in the general area and wearing a tracksuit. That he had a balaclava on (as a hat) and gloves in December does not amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion.

I find it concerning that the male officer admits to wanting to nick YM and his friends because, even if they didn't do it, they were doing something. I suspect he did not, in his own mind, suspect them of the offence they were arrested for. I note the comments of the blonde officer that they had no proof. Stop and search forms were not completed correctly. Rated: Red.

Police response: The Chief Inspector for the emergency response team for which the searching officer is aligned to will be looking into this and providing their findings. Update would be provided to CMG when this is received from the Chief Inspector.

CMG feedback for second video: The S&S was fine. We could not see that a UoF form had been completed. I am marking this as a neutral for now but if no form has been completed that might change. Rated: Neutral.

Police response: I have passed the feedback to the searching officer’s supervisor and also spoken to the supervisor. The supervisor has now confirmed on meeting with the officer that the UOF form was not completed by the officer, the supervisor will now be issuing a Learning Through Reflection to the officer for not complying with policy and will be reviewing three subsequent searches of the officer.

CMG feedback on third video: This was a good search in that the officer was polite and offered the person a drugs referral. It would have been a green but they did not follow GOWISELY so it has to be an amber. Rated: Amber.

Police response: The line manager has discussed the feedback with the searching officer and the officer accepts the findings and will ensure full GOWISELY is completed when engaging in stop and search. Line manager have reviewed three searches of the officer and there are no concerns identified.