Met Police Officers Reinstated After Appeal Over Bianca Williams Stop and Search Incident

[Social Media]

 

Two former Metropolitan Police officers, Jonathan Clapham and Sam Franks, have won their appeal to be reinstated after being dismissed last October over their involvement in the controversial stop and search of British athlete Bianca Williams and her partner, Olympic sprinter Ricardo Dos Santos. The Police Appeals Tribunal overturned the previous ruling, which had found the officers guilty of lying about smelling cannabis during the stop, deeming the initial decision “irrational” and “inconsistent.”

BREAKING: Two former Metropolitan Police officers sacked over a stop and search involving British athlete Bianca Williams have been handed their jobs back.https://t.co/xBPx9xbILJ

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/5jg6cB4Aaz

— Sky News (@SkyNews) October 4, 2024

 

The incident in question took place on July 4, 2020, when Clapham and Franks stopped Williams and Dos Santos as they were driving home from training in west London with their three-month-old baby in the car. The officers handcuffed the couple and conducted a search on suspicion of drugs and weapons possession, but no illegal items were found. The Metropolitan Police faced public backlash after footage of the stop, which was posted on social media, showed a distressed Williams, particularly concerned about being separated from her infant son.

 

 

Following the incident, a disciplinary panel chaired by Chiew Yin Jones ruled that the officers had breached professional standards regarding honesty and integrity, leading to their dismissal. However, the appeal process has now reversed this decision, with Tribunal Chairman Damien Moore stating that Clapham and Franks were “dedicated, hard-working, and much respected officers” whose reputations had been “ruined” by the original findings. He added, “Both officers did not lie. Both officers will now be reinstated to the Met Police. They should receive back-pay.”

Sacked Met Police officers involved in the stop, search and handcuffing of Olympic athlete Bianca Williams, will have their appeal heard in October.pic.twitter.com/quKT9n25zh

— Michael Morgan (@mikecmorgan) July 29, 2024

 

In the wake of their initial dismissal, public support for Clapham and Franks grew, with an online campaign raising over £150,000 to aid their legal fight. The officers’ reinstatement marks the end of a challenging chapter for both men, who can now return to their positions in the police force.

 

As for Williams, she has continued her athletic career with great success. At the Paris Olympics this summer, she was part of the British women’s 4x100m relay team, which not only qualified for the final but went on to win a silver medal, a significant achievement in her sporting career.

 

Based on a report from The Independent 2024-10-05

 

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

On 10/5/2024 at 3:32 AM, Social Media said:

The officers’ reinstatement marks the end of a challenging chapter for both men, who can now return to their positions in the police force.

The challenging bit remains, why were the pair stopped, and handcuffed, particularly when she was with a three month old baby, when there was no evidence or  trace of drugs or weapons, and no real prospect of violence. 

 

These two may be “dedicated, hard-working, and much respected officers” whose reputations have been “ruined”. It does seem rather remarkable that they seemed to have smelt cannabis, when this couple drove past them in their car? It must have been a particularly pungent strain of the drug to have been wafted from the couples moving car to the moving police car! It does sound like an episode from one of Tom Sharpe's novels chronicling the apartheid era South African Police Force!

 

Maybe their olfactory senses need recalibration. I am sure that the initial "stop" was not triggered by seeing a young, obviously successful and relatively affluent black couple in a smart car?

Edited October 6 by herfiehandbag

[JonnyF]

Great news. 

 

The race card already expired.

 

Two tier Keir will try to extend the scheme but he has his own issues right now.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Great news. 

 

The race card already expired.

 

Two tier Keir will try to extend the scheme but he has his own issues right now.

“The incident in question took place on July 4, 2020”

 

Obviously nothing to do with Starmer, but you couldn’t avoid the urge to wedge.

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“The incident in question took place on July 4, 2020”

 

Obviously nothing to do with Starmer, but you couldn’t avoid the urge to wedge.

 

Starmer is hiding.

 

More dirt about to surface. His days are numbered.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Starmer is hiding.

 

More dirt about to surface. His days are numbered.

He wasn’t hiding on July 4 2020 when these events took place.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6 by Chomper Higgot

[JackGats]

The real issue is not discussed, ie whether police in any country should get paid to go after cannabis (by smell or otherwise).

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, JackGats said:

The real issue is not discussed, ie whether police in any country should get paid to go after cannabis (by smell or otherwise).

IMO that is not the issue. It would be a convenient excuse to investigate those about whom they have suspicions of illegal activities.

If people don't want to be investigated, don't break the law, even if it's only smoking weed. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear on that score.

 

Anyway, if she is a good parent, why is she smoking anything? Did she and he abstain for her entire pregnancy?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Starmer is hiding.

 

More dirt about to surface. His days are numbered.

One can only hope.

Mind you, I was saying from the start that he would be a disaster.

[JackGats]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO that is not the issue. It would be a convenient excuse to investigate those about whom they have suspicions of illegal activities.

If people don't want to be investigated, don't break the law, even if it's only smoking weed. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear on that score.

 

Anyway, if she is a good parent, why is she smoking anything? Did she and he abstain for her entire pregnancy?

Alas, in order to arrest some youth smoking a joint down an alley, police will not wonder at having first to step over a pregnant tramp drinking wine from the bottle.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO that is not the issue. It would be a convenient excuse to investigate those about whom they have suspicions of illegal activities.

If people don't want to be investigated, don't break the law, even if it's only smoking weed. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear on that score.

 

Anyway, if she is a good parent, why is she smoking anything? Did she and he abstain for her entire pregnancy?

What law did she break?

[Will B Good]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO that is not the issue. It would be a convenient excuse to investigate those about whom they have suspicions of illegal activities.

If people don't want to be investigated, don't break the law, even if it's only smoking weed. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear on that score.

 

Anyway, if she is a good parent, why is she smoking anything? Did she and he abstain for her entire pregnancy?

 

 

Genuine question.........Where does it say she is a smoker of anything?

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What law did she break?

Being black, being successful and possibly riding around in a nice car.

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Being black, being successful and possibly riding around in a nice car.

Almost certainly that.

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

https://youtu.be/xGxjnD42iw0?si=s-cYJRpH7WZzwjqH

[JonnyF]

15 hours ago, JackGats said:

The real issue is not discussed, ie whether police in any country should get paid to go after cannabis (by smell or otherwise).

 

In the UK, that depends on the immutable characteristics of the person in possession of the cannabis.

 

Same applies to grooming gangs, calls for terrorism, assaulting police officers at airports etc. 

 

I think they call it positive discrimination, or something. 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

In the UK, that depends on the immutable characteristics of the person in possession of the cannabis.

 

Same applies to grooming gangs, calls for terrorism, assaulting police officers at airports etc. 

 

I think they call it positive discrimination, or something. 

I think it’s more accurately described as an unhealthy fixation on misrepresenting truth.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I think it’s more accurately described as an unhealthy fixation on misrepresenting truth.

 

So why have the Manchester thugs that broke the female police officer's nose at Manchester Airport still not been charged?

 

Any pearls of wisdom on this?

 

The inquiry into the grooming gangs already found that the demographic of the offenders was a huge factor in police investigations.

 

Stop gaslighting. Everyone can see it is happening. 

[MalcolmB]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So why have the Manchester thugs that broke the female police officer's nose at Manchester Airport still not been charged?

 

Any pearls of wisdom on this?

 

The inquiry into the grooming gangs already found that the demographic of the offenders was a huge factor in police investigations.

 

Stop gaslighting. Everyone can see it is happening. 

Most of the crime in the UK is by white people. 
 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So why have the Manchester thugs that broke the female police officer's nose at Manchester Airport still not been charged?

 

Any pearls of wisdom on this?

 

The inquiry into the grooming gangs already found that the demographic of the offenders was a huge factor in police investigations.

 

Stop gaslighting. Everyone can see it is happening. 

I’ve no idea.

 

Neither do you.

[JonnyF]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve no idea.

 

Clearly. You've been demonstrating that for years. 

 

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Neither do you.

 

On the contrary, I've read the results of the investigation.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html

 

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Clearly. You've been demonstrating that for years. 

 

 

On the contrary, I've read the results of the investigation.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html

 

The report said a lot of other things too, stuff like believing the victims. 
 

Do you police should believe the victims?

 

Do you think police officers blaming the victims ‘for what is going wrong in society’ is acceptable?

 

Do you think victims of child sexual abuse who report their abuse should be accused of ‘attention seeking’ 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gang-victims-authorities-iicsa-b2005083.html

 

 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The report said a lot of other things too, stuff like believing the victims. 
 

Do you police should believe the victims?

 

Do you think police officers blaming the victims ‘for what is going wrong in society’ is acceptable?

 

Do you think victims of child sexual abuse who report their abuse should be accused of ‘attention seeking’ 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gang-victims-authorities-iicsa-b2005083.html

 

 

 

Poor attempts at deflection. Even by your standards. 

 

All of the above happened to protect the perpetrators. And we all know why they wanted to do that (see my previous post if you've already forgotten). 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Poor attempts at deflection. Even by your standards. 

 

And we all know why they wanted to do that (see my previous post if you've already forgotten). 

It’s not deflection Jonny, it’s reminding you and others of the breadth of the problems uncovered by the investigation.

 

You would like to portray a narrow view, so yes I do understand why you don’t like those broader issues to be discussed.

 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

All of the above happened to protect the perpetrators.

That’s a starling claim.

 

Can please provide evidence to back it up, an actual report finding that makes that claim, not your own interpretation .

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not deflection Jonny, it’s reminding you and others of the breadth of the problems uncovered by the investigation.

 

You would like to portray a narrow view, so yes I do understand why you don’t like those broader issues to be discussed.

 

That’s a starling claim.

 

Can please provide evidence to back it up, an actual report finding that makes that claim, not your own interpretation .

 

The report clearly states why they didn't want to blame the perps.

 

So instead, they tried to blame the victims. 

 

It's really not complicated Chomps. 

 

2 tier policing. 

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The report clearly states why they didn't want to blame the perps.

That was not your claim Jonny.

 

Your statement was:

 

26 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

All of the above happened to protect the perpetrators.

Let’s see you provide actual statements from the investigation that make this claim.

 

If that’s what the investigation findings state you’ll have no problem quoting ‘the investigation report’.

 

 

Edited October 7 by Chomper Higgot

[still kicking]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One can only hope.

Mind you, I was saying from the start that he would be a disaster.

Stick to your sheep.

[RayC]

On 10/6/2024 at 2:28 AM, herfiehandbag said:

The challenging bit remains, why were the pair stopped, and handcuffed, particularly when she was with a three month old baby, when there was no evidence or  trace of drugs or weapons, and no real prospect of violence. 

 

These two may be “dedicated, hard-working, and much respected officers” whose reputations have been “ruined”. It does seem rather remarkable that they seemed to have smelt cannabis, when this couple drove past them in their car? It must have been a particularly pungent strain of the drug to have been wafted from the couples moving car to the moving police car! It does sound like an episode from one of Tom Sharpe's novels chronicling the apartheid era South African Police Force!

 

Maybe their olfactory senses need recalibration. I am sure that the initial "stop" was not triggered by seeing a young, obviously successful and relatively affluent black couple in a smart car?

 

An excellent post. I'm just bumping it as I'd be interested in direct answers to the questions you raise. To date, there don't appear to be any.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, still kicking said:

Stick to your sheep.

Typical response by a poster with nothing to say on topic so resorts to personal insults.

Sad.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/7/2024 at 5:30 PM, Will B Good said:

 

 

Genuine question.........Where does it say she is a smoker of anything?

 

 

Were there not two in the car? Why would the cops say they smelt weed if they didn't?