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.

This video was watched by the Haringey CMG and MOPAC. Both agreed with the Tower Hamlets’ CMG’s feedback. The Metropolitan Police did not and provided a letter justifying the search. This is not able to be published due to it containing confidential information.

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 for 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.

February 2026

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: The panel considered this could have been a neutral but ultimately felt the use of handcuffs was not justified and so an amber score was required. The panel had sight of the use of force form but ultimately did not consider that the person who was handcuffed showed a threat of violence and it was notable that the other officer who searched his friend had not handcuffed that person despite him being more vocal and less compliant. The panel would be interested to know the officer's justification for using force as recorded in her pocketbook. The panel felt the officer's tone was good and she appropriately recognised the person's vulnerabilities (homelessness) and checked he had somewhere to go. She was respectful in searching his bag of belongings as well. Please can feedback be passed on and the officer asked for her justification for using force? As DCI Peters suggested, she should watch the BWV this relates to. This goes for all the clips. Can you also check a UoF form was done, please?

Police response: The feedback was shared with the officer and line manager.

The line manager conducted a debrief with the officer, BWV watched and the comments from the CMG were taken into account.

The line manager noted that the CMG’s feedback was generally complimentary regarding the officer’s conduct, including positive recognition of her awareness of the subject’s homelessness. However, the CMG did question the officer’s justification for the use of force, specifically the application of handcuffs.

The officer explained that she was conducting a search of the male, who was significantly larger than her. Officer described herself as being 5’3” with a small build, while the subject had a clear advantage in both height and physical stature. Given the search was for drugs and that drug paraphernalia was present nearby, officer was concerned the subject might attempt to discard, conceal, or destroy drugs before she could react. This included the risk of the subject attempting to swallow drugs, which is a known behaviour if individuals are not properly controlled.

Referencing the TIM aspect of the TIM PADE PIPER mnemonic, the officer highlighted that the Time, Immediacy, and Means for the subject to carry out such an action would require only a fraction of a second. She noted that such actions would likely occur faster than her ability to respond, in line with the widely accepted principle that action is faster than reaction.

The line manager is satisfied with the officer’s account, justification, and actions. It was also confirmed that the officer correctly made a pocket notebook entry and completed a use of force form.

CMG feedback for second video: Panel was divided between neutral and amber but ultimately came down on amber because it was felt the use of handcuffs was not justified. Whilst the panel could understand an officer might have concerns about who was in the car (given it had tinted windows) and so be worried about a threat, the person was cuffed after they got out of the car and it was clear they came out without a weapon and in a compliant fashion. The panel also felt the officer could have shown his warrant card sooner. The panel would be interest to know the officer's justification for force. Please can feedback be passed on and the officer asked for his justification for using force? Can you also check a UoF form was done, please?

Police response: The feedback was shared with the officer and their line manager. The line manager reviewed the stop and search with the officer, including the Body Worn Video (BWV), and identified no concerns.

The line manager is satisfied that the officer’s use of force was appropriate and in line with PACE and relevant policies. It is recognised that individuals involved in the supply of drugs may attempt to obstruct searches by swallowing substances to avoid arrest. Previous incidents have shown that where individuals were not handcuffed, they were able to ingest drugs, which not only hinders the investigation but can also present a significant medical risk.

The use of handcuffs is a Home Office–approved tactic during stop and search, and in this instance, their use was appropriate. The officer clearly explained the rationale for applying handcuffs and, upon their removal, checked for any injuries. No concerns or complaints were raised by the individual who was searched.

Regarding the timing of the warrant card being shown, although it was presented after a short delay, no breach was identified. It is not considered that presenting the warrant card earlier would have changed the quality or outcome of the encounter, as the officer remained calm, professional, and communicated effectively throughout.

The officer delivered all elements of GOWISELY, and their communication style was clear, appropriate, and in line with required standards.

CMG feedback for third video: The search was compliant and the officer's tone was good. The BWV cut off early so couldn't assess in full. Please can feedback be passed on?

Police response: This was passed on to the searching officer and line manager, this is rated as neutral, the searching officer is from SE BCU.

March 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The March 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: The panel felt that the grounds for this search were fairly weak: seen to discard something and walk away, strong smell of cannabis, and it being a drug hotspot. The panel was concerned the person's vulnerabilities: English as a second language and medical needs were not picked up on. The panel could not see the justification for immediate use of handcuffs nor them being kept on for 26 minutes. Question proportionality and use of resources.

To provide more detail, this was a stop and search of two very compliant individuals where, at its highest, they may have been smoking a joint. It involved at least 5 officers, which seemed excessive, as did the length of time it lasted. We felt the grounds were flimsy - the pair had been seen to discard "something" but not necessarily a joint, and the other grounds (smell of cannabis and the area being a drug hotspot) are subjective (smell) and too general (the area being a drug hotspot). The person searched did not speak English as his first language and he had a number of prescription meds on him. We did not feel he understood what officers were saying nor that his medical needs were realised. We simply do not understand why he was in handcuffs for 26 minutes.

I'd like this feedback (above and in the form) to be passed on and the officer's next 3 searches reviewed. I'd also like the justification for prolonged UoF. Can also you check a UoF form was done, please?

Police response: The feedback was shared with the line manager and the searching officer.

The line manager has met with the searching officer to address the feedback.

During this discussion, the officer acknowledged that a Use of Force (UOF) form had not been completed. This omission has been addressed and will be dealt with through a Learning Through Reflection (LTR) which the line manager would be issuing. The current system for completing the LTR is down, the line manager was recently advised on how to complete the LTR process with the power app currently down.

The line manager confirmed that he was present at the scene in a supervisory capacity and directly oversaw the incident as it unfolded. Based on his observations, he raised no concerns regarding the grounds for the stop or the use of force applied by the officer.

The incident involved two males who were observed walking very briskly upon noticing police officers approaching from the opposite direction. Both individuals avoided eye contact, and officers detected a strong smell of cannabis in the vicinity. As officers approached, the males attempted to make off but were stopped. Cannabis was subsequently found, reinforcing the grounds for the stop.

One of the males was placed in handcuffs. This action was justified due to the subjects’ behaviour indicating an attempt to evade police, the presence of drugs, and officer safety considerations. The searching officer, a female officer approximately 5ft 1 in height, reasonably applied handcuffs given the physical disparity and the need to maintain control of the situation.

The male remained in handcuffs for approximately 26 minutes. This duration was considered reasonable and proportionate due to a number of factors. There was a language barrier which slowed communication and extended the search process. The male was also in possession of a holdall bag containing multiple blister packs of tablets with foreign writing. Officers required additional time to identify the substances, including making enquiries using available resources.

It was not considered proportionate to remove the handcuffs during this process, as there was a risk they would need to be reapplied if prohibited items were identified. Maintaining the handcuffs ensured officer safety and continuity throughout the investigation.

The incident was managed as part of a Hackney Nights serial, with multiple officers present, including a supervising officer. Responsibilities were appropriately distributed among officers, including searching, completing paperwork, and conducting PND/LED checks, ensuring the situation was handled efficiently.

In conclusion, although the grounds for the stop were considered weak by CMG, the officers had reasonable grounds based on the smell of cannabis, the behaviour of the individuals, and the recovery of cannabis. The supervisor is satisfied that both the stop and use of force were lawful, proportionate, and justified. The only issue identified relates to the administrative failure to complete a UOF form, which is being addressed appropriately. The line manager is asked to review three subsequent searches and update me.

The CMG replied to the police and stated: “The question is what the officers reasonably suspected at the time of deciding to initiate the stop and search. They cannot say they had reasonable grounds to suspect because they ultimately found cannabis.” This was passed to the searching officer. The police confirmed three subsequent searches done by the officer had been reviewed and no issues found.

CMG feedback for second video: Panel not able to assess as no BWV uploaded.

Police response: This BWV is restricted.

CMG feedback for third video: The officer was heard to say "I don't think there's anything we're going to get out of this". The panel is therefore unclear why the occupants were searched, particularly given one of them was a vulnerable autistic child. Relatedly, the O of GOWISELY was not given. The panel couldn't see what grounds there were to search - there was no evidence of speeding and the panel could not see why the car being linked to drug dealing/the driver being linked to TFMV gave rise to reasonable grounds. It was not clear what the officers were looking for.

Please pass the feedback on and ask the officer the following questions:

1. What were you looking for and why wasn't this stated to the people searched?

2. How did the car being linked to drug dealing/the driver being linked to TFMV give rise to reasonable grounds? 

3. Why was the search conducted when the officer said beforehand: "I don't think there's anything we're going to get out of this"? In particular, why was a vulnerable, autistic child searched? 

Please can the officer's next 3 searches also be reviewed? 

Police response: The searching officer and line manager are not from Hackney or Tower Hamlets. The searching officer is from CN BCU. Feedback was sent to the searching officer’s line manager 17th April 2026, I have not had a response.  I have sent a chaser email to the CN BCU Stop and Search lead 24th June 2026, I am awaiting an update.

In response to our questions, the officer stated:

CMG question: What were you looking for and why wasn't this stated to the people searched?

The grounds for search were based on intelligence and ANPR marker linking vehicle/driver to suspected drug activity.

The searching officer and colleague attempted to explain the stop/search in a calm and professional manner. Driver became hostile, shouting and swearing, the level of which would be deemed unacceptable in any other profession. GOWISELY given as far as practicable; any omissions were unintentional due to the driver’s aggressive behaviour whilst officer attempted to communicate grounds and intentions.

CMG question: How did the car being linked to drug dealing/the driver being linked to TFMV give rise to reasonable grounds? 

The Vehicle is linked to suspected drug dealing via current police intelligence and linked to serious crime. Observed exceeding speed limit through roadworks. Stop conducted as lawful and proportionate. Driver displayed hostility and aggressive behaviour throughout, despite officers maintaining calm and professional approach, increasing suspicion of officers

CMG question: Why was the search conducted when the officer said beforehand: "I don't think there's anything we're going to get out of this"? In particular, why was a vulnerable, autistic child searched? 

The officer wishes to clarify that the original comment in question was not made by them, it’s reasonable to have a discussion between colleagues about the circumstances and use of police powers. With all incidents, officers actions are not fixed but subject to ongoing review as National Decision Model (NDM) is applied in line with police training. In this case, further information came to light, including the driver’s aggressive demeanour and  evasive behaviour of the other occupants. All these factors taken into account has contributed to the officer forming the view that a search was reasonable in the circumstances.

The officer respectfully wishes to add that to the best of their knowledge and recollection, the vulnerable autistic child was not searched.

April 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. This month, due to issues with the form, feedback was not recorded. We instead provided the following feedback on each video based on our notes and this was the police’s response.

CMG feedback for first video:

Two members of the CMG have reviewed your Body-Worn Video footage and could not agree on what rating to give it. Both members of the CMG agreed that they did not feel there was necessity to handcuff the detained person. One member of the CMG commented: "I would question the necessity of the handcuffing, however. She did reach for her waistband but the officer allowed her to do up her trousers before handcuffing her. That suggested to me that he did not think there was a risk of her doing anything." 

The other member of the CMG commented: 

"My concern is that the response appeared heavy-handed and disproportionate, particularly given the level of compliance shown by both women and the fact that neither was ultimately arrested. The immediate use of handcuffs, before there appeared to be any clear resistance, threat, or attempt to flee, felt excessive in the circumstances.

"I appreciate that officers may have had concerns based on the report received and what they saw in the vehicle. However, from my perspective as an observer, the interaction escalated very quickly, and the use of handcuffs appeared to be applied as a default rather than as a clearly necessary and proportionate response.

"....the immediate use of handcuffs appeared disproportionate given the women’s compliance, the absence of visible aggression or intoxication, and the fact that neither was ultimately arrested."

Police response: No response received.

CMG feedback for second video:

BWV – Rated amber

Circumstance: A group of men and one woman in the park. Apparently one of the men threw something in the grass upon the officers’ arrival. The officers attended the park in response to a 999 call stating people are in the park doing drugs. Main person in video is the woman.

Notes:

Positives

GOWISELY met. Officer stated and explained powers, why she was being stopped and individual understood why she was stopped.

Officer exchanged in meaningful conversation with the individual. The officer listened to her and the officer’s questions directly responded to the individuals’ statements. No escalation.

Negatives

The issue was the record did not provide enough explanation to justify why the group were questioned or whether it made sense to search them. There was no mention of the smell of drugs but by the officers. According to the written record, the stop and search seemed to have been done just because a call was made saying people were doing drugs in the park.

CMG members agreed with the officers in the room that if the officer was to provide further detail and supply the 999 call and it gives justification to the search then would give a green rating.

Police response: The line manager of the searching officer met with them to discuss the Amber rated stop and search encounter. The officer's BWV was reviewed, and the discussion focused on key areas that contribute to a positive stop and search experience, including the importance of explaining actions, providing reassurance, maintaining effective communication throughout the encounter, and ensuring accurate recording.

The review also covered the effective articulation of grounds, with emphasis on painting the scene by clearly evidencing observations and factors such as what the officer saw, heard, smelt or otherwise identified that led to the search. Further discussion took place regarding the recording and justification of any use of force, as well as the identification and consideration of vulnerability.

This was a positive and constructive conversation which reinforced the core principles of effective stop and search practice.

In addition, four BWV stop and search encounters were reviewed with no concerns identified. The footage demonstrated effective communication throughout, clear explanations of grounds and powers, good officer safety and control, and high-quality written records containing appropriate powers, policy, grounds and GOWISLEY details.

The review confirmed the officer's strong understanding of stop and search legislation, policy and best practice. Overall, the encounters reflected a professional approach and demonstrated the officer's commitment to conducting lawful, fair and effective stop and search activity.

CMG feedback for third video:

Amber rating (CMG disagreed at first – one thought amber the other thought red)

Circumstances: Two young women – early 20s in a vehicle recorded as stolen earlier that day. Undercover officers followed the vehicle. The women got out of the vehicle as they thought the officers were ‘nonces.’

Positives:

Followed GOWISELY, up until the individual was arrested.

Negatives:

The case record does not accurately reflect the events in the video. It record states that no arrests were made, when the officer clearly arrested the individual in the BWV.

The Officer de-arrests the individual however he did not formally de-arrest her, by telling her she is de-arrested. He just told her she would receive a letter in the post (fine). Though she seemed to understand that she was de-arrested/ not going to be taken to the police station, formalities/ good practice should be followed to ensure the individuals are clear as to what is going on.

The officer with the BWV attached to his vest had a sarcastic tone which the individual picked up on straight away, which escalated matters. Though, by the end of the interaction both the individual and the officer de-escalate matters.

Police response: A review was led by the line manager of the searching officer, The MPS do not completely agree with the assessment of the CMG. The subject was stopped after being found driving a recently stolen vehicle, with no licence or insurance, and items including tools and false registration plates in the vehicle. Despite a challenging and argumentative demeanour from the subject and her friend, the subject had provided false details and inferring the offences were nonces. The officer remained professional and courteous. The encounter was ultimately resolved proportionately and ended amicably. The subject was dealt with out of custody for traffic matters.

Feedback was provided regarding the early arrest and subsequent questioning, and recording on the stop and search record. Three further searches by the officer were reviewed.

May 2026

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 for first video:

Rated: Neutral. The stop and search was fine. It was concerning to see that the subject's friend was being restrained on the ground but it was difficult to ascertain what was going on due to the footage largely covering the subject. The subject was handcuffed and we would like to see the relevant use of force forms.

Police response: I can confirm that the use of force form was completed and the officer also completed a statement in relation to the force.

CMG feedback for second video:

Rated: Amber. I am concerned there were not reasonable grounds to justify the search. I am not clear if the intelligence specifically identified the vehicle but I note it was 3 days old - enough time to dispose of any parcel. Further, the occupants did not appear to fidget or be nervous (grounds in the written record, which appear to have come from other officers) and I am not clear how the vehicle "heading to the location in which the intel was about", when the intel was 3 days old is relevant. The officers must also be reminded to ensure their clothing doesn't cover their BWV and not to stop the BWV until the interaction has ended.

Police response: In relation to the other clip; this was a search completed by NE BCU proactive syndicate officer, a non CE BCU officer. There was no response received. I have tonight sent off a chaser to the line manager of the searching officer, cc their line manager and also the operational stop and search lead for NE BCU.

Police subsequent response: Three further searches by the officer had been reviewed.

June 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The June 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 panel had serious concerns about this search.

1. The searching officer initially only gave the I and Y of GOWISELY. The detainee had to request the grounds. It was only when the detainee was in handcuffs that GOWISELY was given but even then, the O was missed off.

2. It is not clear that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion. The officer said, "a THEO saw you put something down your pants". It is not clear if the THEO saw the detainee. Further, the THEO does not appear to have said he put drugs down his pants. The other ground was that the area is a drugs hotspot. The IOPC is clear this constitutes weak grounds for a search.

3. It is not clear why the detainee was handcuffed and kept in cuffs for 6 minutes and 15 seconds. We request justification for the use of force.

4. As a feedback point, when searching someone, it is not decent to put vapes etc on the ground as was done here where they will become dirty. You should be thinking about how your searches make the community feel. Small things like placing their belongings somewhere clean (e.g. on top of their bag) is better than putting them on the ground.

5. The BWV cut off early. This should not happen. It should cover the full encounter.

6. It felt the searching officer had already determined the detainee had drugs on him, despite the lack of evidence and that informed the entire search.

Please pass on our feedback and ensure the officer's next three searches are reviewed. Please also note that: We request justification for the use of force.

Police response: The concerns identified in clip 1 had already been recognised through local supervision. The officer has been placed on a development plan, referred to PIOSS, and provided with additional training.

Following a review of the BWV and discussion with the officer, MPS are satisfied that GOWISELY was provided prior to the search and that reasonable grounds were articulated, including suspicion that an item concealed in the male's trousers was drugs and the presence of drug paraphernalia nearby.

The use of handcuffs was recorded on a Use of Force form. While the handcuffs were removed immediately after the search, supervisory feedback was that they should have remained in place until all checks were completed. The MPS is satisfied that the use of handcuffs was justified given the officer's knowledge of, and prior encounters with the subject.

Further learning has been provided regarding the handling of personal belongings during searches and the requirement to keep BWV activated until the entire encounter has concluded.

The line manager has also been asked to review the officer's subsequent stop and searches to ensure continued improvement and compliance with expected standards, an overview of the review is awaited.

Police follow-up response: The officer's rationale for the use of force was based on a belief that the male was concealing drugs in his trousers, the officer wanted to prevent him being able to place these drugs in his mouth. The officer also had previous knowledge of the male that made the officer more concerned about his behaviour.

The line manager has since reviewed three subsequent stop and search encounters conducted by the officer.

CMG feedback for second video:

Rated Green: Panel observed officer behaviour de-escalated the encounter with a good close to the encounter. The officer's tone was good and it was felt a community resolution was a good outcome to the situation.

Police response: No response received.

CMG feedback for third video:

Rated Green: Panel assessed the interaction was closed in a very good manner. The officer had a good tone and was respectful of the woman who she clearly knew. Just as a feedback point, she said the person was detained quite late in the search

Police response: No response received.

July 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The July 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 Neutral: The officer was only partially compliant with GOWISELY and did not communicate their station or details. Officer de-escalated the encounter and closed the encounter in a very good manner. Respectful engagement. Officer advised on drug treatment programmes.

Police response: No response received.

CMG feedback for second video:

Rated Green: Officer de-escalated the encounter and closed the encounter in a good manner. Community Resolution explained and advice on the dangers of nitrous oxide due to volume in car.

Police response: No response received.

CMG feedback for third video:

Rated Green: Officer de-escalated the encounter and closed the encounter in a good manner. Informal approach effective to de-escalate initial tensions.

Police response: No response received.

August 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The August 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: Red. The BWV began in the middle of the incident. The panel are concerned it might have been clipped by the officer and would query why.

This incident related to a call/CAD alerting the TSG officers to a group who may have weapons on them. The searching officer was told over the radio that the group were described as including someone in a blue Nike tracksuit and balaclava and a black tracksuit with a Gucci bag. Despite noting that none of the detained group matched the descriptions of the group allegedly with weapons, they were still searched. The panel therefore questions the grounds and object of that search and cannot know what they were, because GOWISELY was not given, nor do the written reasons given any indication

The officer's tone was incredibly rude to someone he knew to be a child. Shouting at him, "shut your mouth" and "I'll drag you home to your parents" is absolutely unacceptable, particularly when the child was not raising his voice. He then manhandled the child into the back of the van, which must have been very frightening for the child and seemed entirely unnecessary. Once he had him alone in the van, he continued to be rude to him.

The panel does not understand why the boy was kept in handcuffs (or in handcuffs at all) in the back of the van when nothing had been found on him.

The panel is extremely concerned that this is how TSG is behaving towards the community.

From memory, this might be the fourth Red we've ever given but the second involving the TSG. I would particularly highlight the disrespectful treatment of a child and absence of compliance with GOWISELY.

Please can you pass the feedback on and tell TSG we want a full explanation for the points of concern raised. I would also like an explanation for why the video was clipped.

The officer's next three searches should also be reviewed.

CMG feedback for second video:

Rated: Amber but then changed to Red. The grounds for this search were very weak: The written record stated the men looked like drugs users and walked with purpose. During the search, the searched person was told - you're a known drug user and I know you previously swallowed drugs. This is incredibly weak; how did the officer form the reasonable suspicion that they had drugs on them at that time?

The person also said they live in a hostel (so likely homeless) and are being searched every day. There was no indication those vulnerabilities were taken into account

Lastly, should the officer say the search was justified because a crack pipe was found, we would say retroactive justification is not legitimate

It should be noted one panel member thought this was a red.

Subsequent feedback from CMG: I would like to flag that per the College of Policing's Fair Guidance, it is not acceptable to stop and search someone based on their personal factors and past behaviour: https://www.college.police.uk/app/stop-and-search/fair

We learned about this guidance after the viewing and would now agree with the panel member who gave it a Red that it is a Red. I would like the College of Policing's guidance to be addressed in any response to the feedback (either by the officer or their manager) and the officer's next three searches to be reviewed.

CMG feedback for third video:

Rated: Red. The grounds for this search were weak: the officer told him you made off from police, there have been gang tensions, we had intelligence about weapons and there have been stabbings in Tower Hamlets. First, there is no evidence he made off from the police. One officer said he waved at them and he had a bike so could have made off, but didn't. Second, the searching officer's comments about the area are much too vague. Third, there is no evidence he was with a group and he was clear he wasn't. The officer said, but not as part of the grounds, that he was profusely shaking, but he wasn't.

I thought the officer's tone was rude and argumentative. She threatened to put him in handcuffs for no clear reason and then he was handcuffed with excessive use of force, which only escalated matters. I cannot see why handcuffs were required, he was surrounded by four officers and was not acting in a threatening way. He took a small step away from her but there was nothing to suggest he was going to make off.

The officer delivered GOWISELY much too quickly. She also, inaccurately, said he had to give his name and DOB. He does not. It is unclear why she wanted this given she already knew it.

The officer continued to escalate matters as well by saying she had looked him up and saw he had previous. There was no need; nothing had been found on him. It was unnecessary pointscoring.

The panel noted that when the cuffs were eventually taken off, he had marks on his wrist. He also said officers had grabbed him around the neck.

Police response: A DCI has completed a review of the BWV and considered the feedback provided by the CMG in relation to the stop and search. Advice has been sought from the Professional Standards Unit.

Having reviewed all of the available information, the result of the assessment is that the issues identified relate primarily to communication, articulation of grounds, GOWISELY delivery and the officer's decision-making in relation to the application of handcuffs. Its acknowledged the concerns raised by the panel, there has not been identified evidence that would warrant referral to DPS or consideration under misconduct procedures. This view is supported by PSU following their review of the CMG feedback and BWV.

The matter will therefore be progressed through local management action and reflective practice. The officer's line management will provide feedback and coaching in respect of:

• Clear and effective articulation of stop and search grounds.

• Professional communication and engagement during encounters.

• Delivery of GOWISELY information.

• Recording and articulation of necessity for force and handcuffing.

• Reinforcement of best practice when conducting stop and search encounters.

In line with the CMG recommendation, the officer's subsequent stop and searches will also be reviewed by supervision to ensure learning has been embedded.

Three further searches were reviewed.

September 2026

The CMG uses an online form to record feedback during BWV viewings. The September 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:

CMG feedback for second video:

CMG feedback for third video: