Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
British sprinter Bianca Williams has been banned from driving despite telling a court it would jeopardise her chances of going to the 2024 Olympics.
Williams, 29, failed to tell police who was driving a Tesla Model 3 when an alleged offence took place.
The athlete claimed a ban would make it difficult for her to get to training.
But magistrates at Lavender Hill rejected her claim that she could not use public transport and suspended her from driving for six months.
Williams failed on three occasions to reply to letters from the police between April and June 2023.
In October, two Metropolitan Police officers were sacked over a stop and search of Williams and her partner, the Portuguese sprinter Ricardo Dos Santos, 28, in 2020.
The couple are black and claimed they were racially profiled.
A police misconduct hearing was told officers followed Mr Dos Santos in their police carrier because of the "appalling" and "suspicious" nature of his driving and were doing their duty when they conducted the stop and search.
But the panel found two officers had lied about smelling cannabis.
'Totally my fault'
Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.
Representing herself, Williams said she was currently working as a tennis coach in the evenings and as a full-time athlete during the day.
The sprinter, who lives in the Maida Vale area of west London with her partner, said it was "massively inconvenient" to get to the central London athletics track where she trains using public transport and "really hard" to get to her tennis coaching sessions in north London without a car.
She told the court she drops off her three-year-old child at nursery before training every morning, and said losing her licence would "make my dream of going to the Olympics next year impossible".
"I understand this is totally my fault, I shouldn't have relied on somebody else to fill out the form," she said.
"It's hard to get from nursery to training. My income would drop because I wouldn't be able to do any coaching sessions.
"It would be horrible to lose my licence. I would potentially have no work and no income."
Williams was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a fine of £276, a surcharge of £110 and £85 costs. Another 18 points were added to her licence, bringing her total to 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------
a fantastic role model for kids.
Williams, 29, failed to tell police who was driving a Tesla Model 3 when an alleged offence took place.
The athlete claimed a ban would make it difficult for her to get to training.
But magistrates at Lavender Hill rejected her claim that she could not use public transport and suspended her from driving for six months.
Williams failed on three occasions to reply to letters from the police between April and June 2023.
In October, two Metropolitan Police officers were sacked over a stop and search of Williams and her partner, the Portuguese sprinter Ricardo Dos Santos, 28, in 2020.
The couple are black and claimed they were racially profiled.
A police misconduct hearing was told officers followed Mr Dos Santos in their police carrier because of the "appalling" and "suspicious" nature of his driving and were doing their duty when they conducted the stop and search.
But the panel found two officers had lied about smelling cannabis.
'Totally my fault'
Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.
Representing herself, Williams said she was currently working as a tennis coach in the evenings and as a full-time athlete during the day.
The sprinter, who lives in the Maida Vale area of west London with her partner, said it was "massively inconvenient" to get to the central London athletics track where she trains using public transport and "really hard" to get to her tennis coaching sessions in north London without a car.
She told the court she drops off her three-year-old child at nursery before training every morning, and said losing her licence would "make my dream of going to the Olympics next year impossible".
"I understand this is totally my fault, I shouldn't have relied on somebody else to fill out the form," she said.
"It's hard to get from nursery to training. My income would drop because I wouldn't be able to do any coaching sessions.
"It would be horrible to lose my licence. I would potentially have no work and no income."
Williams was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a fine of £276, a surcharge of £110 and £85 costs. Another 18 points were added to her licence, bringing her total to 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------
a fantastic role model for kids.
Show More
Why does he think that people who refuse to take a breath test get the same punishment as those who are proven to be over the limit. As the refusal to comply is in effect, admittance to guilt.
Most prob will be Sir Keir’s new minister of sport before long,tough life.
The purpose of the penalty is not to provide an obvious way to game the system. I think though if you documented that someone who refused a breath test was a drunk driver, you would find yourself in data protection difficulties.
Yes, so this is analogous. She tried to game the system, that failed, made up some bull sh1t lies to try and get off a ban, that failed too.
She could actually carry on driving as no copper is going to risk giving her car a pull, and get sacked.
Typical british relay runner - struggles to stay in her lane
Cider • December 5, 2023 4:14 PM GMT
She could actually carry on driving as no copper is going to risk giving her car a pull, and get sacked.
Why would they get sacked? They wouldn't need to lie about smelling cannabis, so no problem.
She could actually carry on driving as no copper is going to risk giving her car a pull, and get sacked.
Why would they get sacked? They wouldn't need to lie about smelling cannabis, so no problem.
Cider • December 5, 2023 4:12 PM GMT
Yes, so this is analogous. She tried to game the system, that failed, made up some bull sh1t lies to try and get off a ban, that failed too.
She had 11 points already, if she'd turned water into wine she'd still have been banned. And once again 100s plea not to get banned every week, some win some lose.
Yes, so this is analogous. She tried to game the system, that failed, made up some bull sh1t lies to try and get off a ban, that failed too.
She had 11 points already, if she'd turned water into wine she'd still have been banned. And once again 100s plea not to get banned every week, some win some lose.
What was the hearing for then? Someone said she admitted guilt, and according to you, a ban was a foregone conclusion.
My nephew was photographed by a camera for speeding - penalty 3-points; he was also stopped by coppers overtaking on the inside in town later - another possible 3-points. And, fearing he might be disqualified (he was a new driver then/max 5-points allowed within 2 yrs) he refused to identify himself as the driver of the car photographed for speeding. The person down to drive the car were myself, my sister and him.
I told my sister if my nephew did not own up I'd volunteer the info to the Police myself. My sister did (eventually), and a letter was sent to my nephew at his uni address; to say he was furious would be an understatement of the year.
His defence was it was not his duty to identify or admit he was the driver. He insisted it was the Police. He also claimed the photograph could not be definitive he was the driver either. Nonetheless, I "told" my sister (my nephew understood where I stood here) if my nephew was unwilling or sufficiently matured to own up to his behaviour then he should not be driving; can't do the sentence, don't do the crime. No aspersion should be cast on the other (innocent) named drivers.
Even now my nephew has not forgiven me on this. Tough!
I told my sister if my nephew did not own up I'd volunteer the info to the Police myself. My sister did (eventually), and a letter was sent to my nephew at his uni address; to say he was furious would be an understatement of the year.
His defence was it was not his duty to identify or admit he was the driver. He insisted it was the Police. He also claimed the photograph could not be definitive he was the driver either. Nonetheless, I "told" my sister (my nephew understood where I stood here) if my nephew was unwilling or sufficiently matured to own up to his behaviour then he should not be driving; can't do the sentence, don't do the crime. No aspersion should be cast on the other (innocent) named drivers.
Even now my nephew has not forgiven me on this. Tough!
So Dave, you making out that having already 11pts perhaps her non obliging with the law identifying herself as the driver when an offence had been made was an attempt to not get banned?
Either she was the driver and lied or failed to provide the details who was driving when required to, on 3 occasions.
I’m happy that there’s deceit in there whichever way you cut it.
Either she was the driver and lied or failed to provide the details who was driving when required to, on 3 occasions.
I’m happy that there’s deceit in there whichever way you cut it.
Why would they get sacked?
Fellow white knighters. There's woke credibility on the dinner party circuit in them there hills.
Fellow white knighters. There's woke credibility on the dinner party circuit in them there hills.
tough love impossible...
he will thank you for it one day i reckon.
he will thank you for it one day i reckon.
Cider • December 5, 2023 4:27 PM GMT
What was the hearing for then? Someone said she admitted guilt, and according to you, a ban was a foregone conclusion
She's entitled to say her bit. I'm sure she wasn't the only one on that day. She wasn't confident enough to employ a solicitor though.
What was the hearing for then? Someone said she admitted guilt, and according to you, a ban was a foregone conclusion
She's entitled to say her bit. I'm sure she wasn't the only one on that day. She wasn't confident enough to employ a solicitor though.
Tying yourself in knots here. Either the hearing was carried out in the hope of getting off, or it wasn't.
Cider • December 5, 2023 4:31 PM GMT
Why would they get sacked?
So you haven't got an answer? You don't think the two lying PCs should have been sacked. That is obvious as you purred over them getting a few £k from go-funders.
Why would they get sacked?
So you haven't got an answer? You don't think the two lying PCs should have been sacked. That is obvious as you purred over them getting a few £k from go-funders.
I've not actually thoroughly researched the first 'event'. In my experience of these types of employment hearings, it doesn't need the burden of proof of a criminal court, ie adjudicators can pick a side they want to believe.
Cider • December 5, 2023 4:36 PM GMT
Tying yourself in knots here. Either the hearing was carried out in the hope of getting off, or it wasn't.
What? You're the one in knots after implying that she was a liar and being unable to back it up. She, like hundreds of othe,r says please don't ban me for xyz reason. Sometimes it works. It isn't lying.
Tying yourself in knots here. Either the hearing was carried out in the hope of getting off, or it wasn't.
What? You're the one in knots after implying that she was a liar and being unable to back it up. She, like hundreds of othe,r says please don't ban me for xyz reason. Sometimes it works. It isn't lying.
Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.
What do you reckon.
What do you reckon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f_u64_E5sw
----------------------------------------------
pity we don't have smellyvision...
would have been a big help with this one tbh.
----------------------------------------------
pity we don't have smellyvision...
would have been a big help with this one tbh.
Dec 5, 2023 -- 4:43PM, Cider wrote:
Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.What do you reckon.
Come out and say it if you aren't too scared.
UserCider • December 5, 2023 2:11 PM GMT
Looks like at least one person involved is a proven liar.
Looks like at least one person involved is a proven liar.
I represented myself in a magistrates court as well (decades ago) for alleged driving offences. I was lied my arse off (successfully 
)
)
You said it yourself. It's akin to refusing a breath test when drunk. Attempted gaming of the system. I doubt there are many humans alive who have not lied to try and get out of a tight spot. I did something quite bad (nobody was hurt), young and stupid. I didn't want to be taken off the road aged circa 19 and I lied in court to save myself. I could have gone with the option of accepting guilt but I backed myself to navigate myself out of trouble. Lucky, lucky day.
I had been to court previously that year for very minor offences, and I had evidence that the police were incorrect. I paid £200 for a brief that was worse than useless, he should have got me off. So I concluded that I could do a better job myself for the more serious one. Crazy times thinking back.
'HappyHippy', he got 3 points for speeding. But, the copper whop stopped him in town did not prosecute - only a warning. Nevertheless, he went and totalled 2.5 cars each time blaming the cars (a Ford and a Polo); the last he was hit at the roundabout for not sufficiently given way to traffic on his right.
One can choose one's friends, but not a relative. How very true!
One can choose one's friends, but not a relative. How very true!
He's in New Zealand the last time I heard. Spoilt!
Any reason why she wasn't done for perverting the course of justice?
Can anyone remember the former MP for Leicester who got a custodial sentence for lying, not identifying the driver caught speeding on camera and perverting the course on justice? I think she got 6 months, was deselected and lost her seat standing as an independent. She was still pleading innocence despite her work diary (constituency) implicated her. And, she's lawyer!
that former Lib Dem MP was involved in something like that impossible (i think)...
Chris Hoon i think...
he was married to the greek economist wifey or something like that.
Chris Hoon i think...
he was married to the greek economist wifey or something like that.
imp
A former MP who was jailed for perverting the course of justice has written about her struggles in prison.
Fiona Onasanya said she found interrupted sleep, "measly meals like spaghetti hoops" and a lack of almond milk hard during her month behind bars.
The ex-Peterborough MP for Labour was jailed in January 2019 and became the first to be removed by a recall petition in May.
She now hopes to "become a voice" for the women she met in prison.
Ms Onasanya became the first sitting MP in nearly three decades to be jailed when she was convicted of lying to police over a speeding ticket. She was given a three-month sentence and served a month of it.
Her brother Festus Onasanya was jailed for 10 months after pleading guilty to the same charge.
'This ain't Costa'
Ms Onasanya's book is described as a "candid account of life both behind and beyond the door as a sitting MP".
She recalls her naivety about the legal high Spice, claiming she told a prison officer she used it "all the time", after assuming he meant "seasonings like salt and pepper".
During her first breakfast at HMP Bronzefield in Middlesex she claims she was ridiculed by another inmate, who shouted "This ain't Costa" after she asked for almond milk or "soya if there's no alternatives".
A former MP who was jailed for perverting the course of justice has written about her struggles in prison.
Fiona Onasanya said she found interrupted sleep, "measly meals like spaghetti hoops" and a lack of almond milk hard during her month behind bars.
The ex-Peterborough MP for Labour was jailed in January 2019 and became the first to be removed by a recall petition in May.
She now hopes to "become a voice" for the women she met in prison.
Ms Onasanya became the first sitting MP in nearly three decades to be jailed when she was convicted of lying to police over a speeding ticket. She was given a three-month sentence and served a month of it.
Her brother Festus Onasanya was jailed for 10 months after pleading guilty to the same charge.
'This ain't Costa'
Ms Onasanya's book is described as a "candid account of life both behind and beyond the door as a sitting MP".
She recalls her naivety about the legal high Spice, claiming she told a prison officer she used it "all the time", after assuming he meant "seasonings like salt and pepper".
During her first breakfast at HMP Bronzefield in Middlesex she claims she was ridiculed by another inmate, who shouted "This ain't Costa" after she asked for almond milk or "soya if there's no alternatives".
Fiona Onasanya, the MP for Peterborough, was accused of colluding with her brother to avoid having three points added to her driver’s licence by claiming that a former lodger had been driving her Nissan Micra when it was found travelling at 41mph in a 30mph zone.
Police established the former lodger was in Russia at the time of the offence.
Ooops. Not immediately evident why the brother got more than triple the driver herself.
Police established the former lodger was in Russia at the time of the offence.
Ooops. Not immediately evident why the brother got more than triple the driver herself.
i don't think dave will like you bringing that up Cider...
R word could be coming soon ?
R word could be coming soon ?
On 3 February 2012, Huhne resigned from the Cabinet when he was charged with perverting the course of justice over a 2003 speeding case. His wife at the time, Vicky Pryce, had falsely claimed that she was driving the car, and accepted the licence penalty points on his behalf so that he could avoid being banned from driving. Huhne denied the charge until the trial began on 4 February 2013 when he changed his plea to guilty, resigned as a member of Parliament, and left the Privy Council.[75][76][77] He and Pryce were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on 11 March to eight months in prison for perverting the course of justice.[78] He served nine weeks[79] of this sentence at HMP Leyhill in Gloucestershire before he was released.
Wesdag • December 5, 2023 5:49 PM GMT
Any reason why she wasn't done for perverting the course of justice?
Give us a laugh, why would that happen?
Any reason why she wasn't done for perverting the course of justice?
Give us a laugh, why would that happen?
impossible asked if anyone could remember the more recent one, HH. I recall the Huhne one as well. Vicky Pryce has returned to the media as an economics 'expert'. iirc she worked at the treasury.
I imagine what starts off seeming like a minor misdemeanour, ends up a deep hole with a big shovel, and eventually a life changing one.
I imagine what starts off seeming like a minor misdemeanour, ends up a deep hole with a big shovel, and eventually a life changing one.
Thanks 'Cider and HappyHippy'. These privileged individuals think they'll be believed and justice will escape them. How can they have forgotten the Lord who made a fraudulent insurance claim for losing his collection of cars in a fire? Or Jonathan Aitken.
As for Ms Onasanya that was as stupid and arrogant one could ever imagine. It was only a speeding ticket!
As for Ms Onasanya that was as stupid and arrogant one could ever imagine. It was only a speeding ticket!
HappyHibby • December 5, 2023 6:43 PM GMT
i don't think dave will like you bringing that up Cider...
R word could be coming soon
Why would I remotely think that was anything to do with racism?
btw this is what I originally said
dave1357 • December 5, 2023 2:33 PM GMT
It's a thinly veiled racist thread, penzance, so you should know these are acceptable on horse racing forum.
Which was a dig at the dailymailish nature of the off-topic threads on this forum.
i don't think dave will like you bringing that up Cider...
R word could be coming soon
Why would I remotely think that was anything to do with racism?
btw this is what I originally said
dave1357 • December 5, 2023 2:33 PM GMT
It's a thinly veiled racist thread, penzance, so you should know these are acceptable on horse racing forum.
Which was a dig at the dailymailish nature of the off-topic threads on this forum.
One of the best '24 hours in police custody' was a privileged rich arrogant surgeon, who set out to commit insurance fraud. Anthony McGrath. Now that was delicious justice. The police did an amazing job.
I think Ms Pryce was persuaded or coerced by Mr Huhne for taking the rap; Mr Huhne looked smug and I hated that smirk of his.
Huhne wasn't a particularly likeable chap when he was in Westminster imv impossible...
think he would have been a hard person to work for.
think he would have been a hard person to work for.
'Cider', I watched that episode. The surgeon was so stupid; the idiot "hid" the items in his family home I believe. Also, the break-in broken window was so unconvincing. And, he was arrogant to the end too.
Yes, he was smart but his arrogance made him complacent. It was a real life episode of Columbo.
Scant information as to the original offences and possible these might still be maybe not the end of the saga. As to perverting the course of justice it was a fair question from wesdag as simply lying or omitting to provide information about even a speeding offence can lead to such a charge.
CagliariG • December 5, 2023 7:27 PM GMT
Scant information as to the original offences and possible these might still be maybe not the end of the saga. As to perverting the course of justice it was a fair question from wesdag as simply lying or omitting to provide information about even a speeding offence can lead to such a charge
It is utterly absurd to suggest that by simply not responding she is perverting the course of justice. There would be thousands charged with that offence if it was remotely possible.
Scant information as to the original offences and possible these might still be maybe not the end of the saga. As to perverting the course of justice it was a fair question from wesdag as simply lying or omitting to provide information about even a speeding offence can lead to such a charge
It is utterly absurd to suggest that by simply not responding she is perverting the course of justice. There would be thousands charged with that offence if it was remotely possible.
it isn't a fact. The woman didn't respond. She was convicted of not responding like everyone else who doesn't respond.
Still twisting things Dave, where did I mention "Her" iyo?
As to perverting the course of justice it was a fair question from wesdag as simply lying or omitting to provide information about even a speeding offence can lead to such a charge
Wesdag • December 5, 2023 5:49 PM GMT
Any reason why she wasn't done for perverting the course of justice?
So who are you talking about?
Wesdag • December 5, 2023 5:49 PM GMT
Any reason why she wasn't done for perverting the course of justice?
So who are you talking about?
Is this like "it's a fair question as killing someone with a gun can lead to a charge of murder"
Simply stating the law that applies to everyone in England Dave including her if you want to be pedantic, fact nonetheless which you deny!!
Dec 5, 2023 -- 7:24PM, impossible123 wrote:
'Cider', I watched that episode. The surgeon was so stupid; the idiot "hid" the items in his family home I believe. Also, the break-in broken window was so unconvincing. And, he was arrogant to the end too.
I saw that episode and thought that the surgeon, knowing he was a doctor, wouldn't have to answer to anyone.
what a mug
Yes, I also watched that, I think he got caught out by the pictures he took of the antiques that were taken AFTER being reported stolen, you see a lot of fraudsters doing the same not realising the photos can be examined for the time they were taken, I thinks it's called meta data or something like that.
It’s possible this bianca woman overlooked/missed the opportunity to respond to these requests for information about a driving offence assumed, but latterly denied by her to have been her.
But in the round it doesn’t look good.
Having already accumulated 11pts and her license hanging by a thread, she clearly has some kind of ‘previous’.
From the article she didn’t claim any negligence or malpractice regarding the issuing of the charge, so it’s on her, a fact she apparently accepts.
If she previously declared it wasn’t her driving while still not adequately responding with the details of who was, then she is daft regarding the potential consequences.
It’s only natural to be suspicious given the information in the article.
Why would you take such a risk, especially when she has already been in the news and I’d assume is subsidised by some kind of funding due to her national running thing (I’ve only heard of her for the allegations against the police)
Using the mentioning of the Olympics in her clemency plea would be enough for this to be made a public interest case, nothing to do withe her race.
But in the round it doesn’t look good.
Having already accumulated 11pts and her license hanging by a thread, she clearly has some kind of ‘previous’.
From the article she didn’t claim any negligence or malpractice regarding the issuing of the charge, so it’s on her, a fact she apparently accepts.
If she previously declared it wasn’t her driving while still not adequately responding with the details of who was, then she is daft regarding the potential consequences.
It’s only natural to be suspicious given the information in the article.
Why would you take such a risk, especially when she has already been in the news and I’d assume is subsidised by some kind of funding due to her national running thing (I’ve only heard of her for the allegations against the police)
Using the mentioning of the Olympics in her clemency plea would be enough for this to be made a public interest case, nothing to do withe her race.
Out of interest.
Was it ever contested by mr dos santos that his driving had been both ‘suspicious’ and ‘appalling’ and been the origin of the police stopping them on the night the police alleged the smell of cannabis?
Was it ever contested by mr dos santos that his driving had been both ‘suspicious’ and ‘appalling’ and been the origin of the police stopping them on the night the police alleged the smell of cannabis?
*just seen in her plea she suggested she had left the response to others.
Hmmm?
If there isn’t deceit somewhere in here, there’s a whole load of irresponsibility.
And a theme about driving problems by somebody.
Hmmm?
If there isn’t deceit somewhere in here, there’s a whole load of irresponsibility.
And a theme about driving problems by somebody.
Alexa ‘ which side of the road do they drive on in portugal?’
She was asked 3x to respond/reply but she chose not too. Her 11-point category perhaps? Ignorance of the law is no excuse otherwise any offender would use the argument to try and wriggle out of a legal situation; using the Olympic as mitigation is so naive, arrogant and disrespectful to the authority and other offenders.
I think this episode shows the character of Ms Williams and/or her advisors. The DVSA ought to have stipulated a new driving test is necessary to validate her suitability - practically and legally - to be allowed on the roads given her 11-point accumulation prior to suspension.
I think this episode shows the character of Ms Williams and/or her advisors. The DVSA ought to have stipulated a new driving test is necessary to validate her suitability - practically and legally - to be allowed on the roads given her 11-point accumulation prior to suspension.
No, that was in mitigation.(Olympics) The Argument about perverting course of justice usually concerns an indictable offence. And probably more at the trial phase than investigation stage, although perjury comes into play then too.
The issue with the letters re traffic offences is the way they are set out, they often require basic admissions of fact that could lead to one perjuring one self, ie the person you say was driving did not have a licence or insurance ect.
So right to remain silent/non response brings in the seperate offence which states that the registered keeper is liable for said offence.
Which was being abused by companies and organisations, pool cars, we don't know who was driving, although an individual could say the keys were on the table in house and another set were somewhere else and various ubnamed people had permission to use vehicle, but that's not getting you off with a speeding ticket.
Interestingly the defendents tried to say the vehicle was acting autonomously when it undertook the police vehicle, Which was proven to be false but does potentially open a can of worms.
Anyway I think she has some neck...
The issue with the letters re traffic offences is the way they are set out, they often require basic admissions of fact that could lead to one perjuring one self, ie the person you say was driving did not have a licence or insurance ect.
So right to remain silent/non response brings in the seperate offence which states that the registered keeper is liable for said offence.
Which was being abused by companies and organisations, pool cars, we don't know who was driving, although an individual could say the keys were on the table in house and another set were somewhere else and various ubnamed people had permission to use vehicle, but that's not getting you off with a speeding ticket.
Interestingly the defendents tried to say the vehicle was acting autonomously when it undertook the police vehicle, Which was proven to be false but does potentially open a can of worms.
Anyway I think she has some neck...
Nevertheless, the DVSA was correct to add an additional 18-points to her already large 11 points; using the qualification for The Olympic was an embarrassment and smacked of superiority. The ban or suspension is to punish, inconvenience and educate the offender. Hopefully she'll learn from it, and move on.
I think Ms Williams is extremely lucky not to have to retake her driving and theory test at the end of this ban. I hope she's been asked to attend an "awareness course" prior ot post ban; her driving record is below average, and her credibility is shot and her law abidingness could only improved.
Ms Williams, just deal with it positively. Anything else is non-productive and could be detrimental.
I think Ms Williams is extremely lucky not to have to retake her driving and theory test at the end of this ban. I hope she's been asked to attend an "awareness course" prior ot post ban; her driving record is below average, and her credibility is shot and her law abidingness could only improved.
Ms Williams, just deal with it positively. Anything else is non-productive and could be detrimental.
dustybin Joined: 29 Dec 08
Replies: 2570106 Dec 23 04:17
Out of interest.
Was it ever contested by mr dos santos that his driving had been both ‘suspicious’ and ‘appalling’ and been the origin of the police stopping them on the night the police alleged the smell of cannabis?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dustybin...
sky news did a piece on it...
here it is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f_u64_E5sw
all i would say is that if the cops were up my backside (and it looked pretty obvious they wanted the car to pull over) i would stop immediately and let them do whatever it was they wanted to do/say.
i was stopped one night years ago...
i'd had a couple of small glasses of something...
i stopped immediately and did a breath test...
no issues so i carried on...
why this pair didn't do that is something i don't understand at all tbh.
Replies: 2570106 Dec 23 04:17
Out of interest.
Was it ever contested by mr dos santos that his driving had been both ‘suspicious’ and ‘appalling’ and been the origin of the police stopping them on the night the police alleged the smell of cannabis?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dustybin...
sky news did a piece on it...
here it is...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f_u64_E5sw
all i would say is that if the cops were up my backside (and it looked pretty obvious they wanted the car to pull over) i would stop immediately and let them do whatever it was they wanted to do/say.
i was stopped one night years ago...
i'd had a couple of small glasses of something...
i stopped immediately and did a breath test...
no issues so i carried on...
why this pair didn't do that is something i don't understand at all tbh.
LOL Hibby suddenly a lawyer, just to advise you hibby an offence e.g getting caught by a speed camera and lying on the NIPs is sufficient to instigate a possible conspiracy to pervert the course of justice investigation and perjury occurs when lying under oath i.e in court.
Hth
Hth
he was convicted of lying to police over a speeding ticket
Yet she wrote a book based on her experiences and people bought it?
A leftie politician and leftie readers no doubt. All living in the twilight zone of half truths and lies.
Yet she wrote a book based on her experiences and people bought it?
A leftie politician and leftie readers no doubt. All living in the twilight zone of half truths and lies.
HH
I’ve never seen that before, but 32 in a residential built up 20 zone would catch the eye of the following plod.
They must assume the rules don’t apply to them.
I’ve never seen that before, but 32 in a residential built up 20 zone would catch the eye of the following plod.
They must assume the rules don’t apply to them.
Other than seeing the pair of them talking to BBC breakfast following the driving incident I never followed the case.
But somebody did ask me on here once if I were the copper on the day knowing there was a child in the backseat would I break the window when they refused to get out the car.
And my answer is still yes.
The police are undermined at every possible juncture and then blamed when they don’t hold wrong doers to account.
I’d have smashed the window if I’d felt there was due reason to arrest, and I’d crack their damn heads like eggs if they didn’t comply
Not cos they are black but because I’d have the arse on all day for having to deal with scum who constantly try taking the p1ss.
But somebody did ask me on here once if I were the copper on the day knowing there was a child in the backseat would I break the window when they refused to get out the car.
And my answer is still yes.
The police are undermined at every possible juncture and then blamed when they don’t hold wrong doers to account.
I’d have smashed the window if I’d felt there was due reason to arrest, and I’d crack their damn heads like eggs if they didn’t comply
Not cos they are black but because I’d have the arse on all day for having to deal with scum who constantly try taking the p1ss.
and the reason i started the thread in the first place dustybin is coz there was a big hoo haa about the whole thing...
all over the 1 and 6 o'clock news...
yet when this latest thing happened i have not once seen it on the BBC news...
not right imv...
awful from the BBC.
all over the 1 and 6 o'clock news...
yet when this latest thing happened i have not once seen it on the BBC news...
not right imv...
awful from the BBC.
in fact...
as someone who watches a fair amount of the BBC News Channel...
i ain't seen the driving ban reported once since it happened on Monday...
you would think in an attempt at some sort of 'balanced' reporting they would have at least mentioned it...
well if they did i didn't see it.
as someone who watches a fair amount of the BBC News Channel...
i ain't seen the driving ban reported once since it happened on Monday...
you would think in an attempt at some sort of 'balanced' reporting they would have at least mentioned it...
well if they did i didn't see it.
Dec 6, 2023 -- 12:57PM, HappyHibby wrote:
in fact...as someone who watches a fair amount of the BBC News Channel...i ain't seen the driving ban reported once since it happened on Monday...you would think in an attempt at some sort of 'balanced' reporting they would have at least mentioned it...well if they did i didn't see it.
Balance and the BBC
The Bias Broadcasting Corporation
Bianca, I can smell a can of p!ss !
Stop taking it gal !
Stop taking it gal !
still wondering how they proved the 2 coppers were lying about thinking they smelt something ...
i thought i smelt cannabis.
no you didn't.
awww, you got me. i was actually thinking about what i was having for my dinner.
i thought i smelt cannabis.
no you didn't.
awww, you got me. i was actually thinking about what i was having for my dinner.
hate i when other people know what you're thinking better than you know yourself ...
Like i said earlier, they were thrown under the bus for the sake of diversity.
I know a few coppers and they all say the same.
I know a few coppers and they all say the same.
Two officers who were sacked for gross misconduct after their stop and search of two athletes have won an appeal against their dismissal.
Met PCs Jonathan Clapham and Sam Franks were fired in October 2023 after their search of the British world championships medallist Bianca Williams and Portugal Olympic sprinter Ricardo Dos Santos.
The two men have been handed their jobs back after winning their appeal against a ruling which said they lied by saying they could smell cannabis during the stop and search.
During the incident in July 2020, the couple were pulled over by the officers in Maida Vale, west London, and searched on suspicion of having drugs and weapons, but nothing was found.
The officers had followed Ms Williams and her partner Mr Dos Santos as they drove from training to their home with their baby, who was then three months old.
Mr Clapham and Mr Franks were dismissed after a disciplinary panel found they had lied about smelling cannabis when they pulled over the athletes.
The finding was overturned by the Police Appeals Tribunal which found the original decision was "irrational" and "inconsistent".
The men were "dedicated, hard-working and much respected officers" whose reputations had been "ruined" by the original findings, Appeals Tribunal chairman Damien Moore said.
Met PCs Jonathan Clapham and Sam Franks were fired in October 2023 after their search of the British world championships medallist Bianca Williams and Portugal Olympic sprinter Ricardo Dos Santos.
The two men have been handed their jobs back after winning their appeal against a ruling which said they lied by saying they could smell cannabis during the stop and search.
During the incident in July 2020, the couple were pulled over by the officers in Maida Vale, west London, and searched on suspicion of having drugs and weapons, but nothing was found.
The officers had followed Ms Williams and her partner Mr Dos Santos as they drove from training to their home with their baby, who was then three months old.
Mr Clapham and Mr Franks were dismissed after a disciplinary panel found they had lied about smelling cannabis when they pulled over the athletes.
The finding was overturned by the Police Appeals Tribunal which found the original decision was "irrational" and "inconsistent".
The men were "dedicated, hard-working and much respected officers" whose reputations had been "ruined" by the original findings, Appeals Tribunal chairman Damien Moore said.
At last somebody with some sense and some good news.
What a good decision, based purely on my limited knowledge of the case...
Just watched BBC news, not mentioned it, unsurprisingly
Just watched BBC news, not mentioned it, unsurprisingly
But there's a story about a Pub Landlord who puts extra charges on people who leave any food on their plate when they've finished at his "all you can eat" buffet
Well done BBC
Well done BBC
Reg
They did mention it!
The appeal judge obviously not been given the script, whereby black people are right even when they are wrong!
They did mention it!
The appeal judge obviously not been given the script, whereby black people are right even when they are wrong!
The correct outcome. It wasn't irrational or inconsistent, it was ideological. Doubt the original disciplinary panel would face any consequences for ruining the lives of two families.
DG, sorry, don't know how I missed it unless it was at the start
As Cider says, perhaps the original disciplinary panel need scrutiny
As Cider says, perhaps the original disciplinary panel need scrutiny
How had she managed to get Insurance with 11 points , it must have her a Fortune ,Many would not cover her
The 'boyfriend' said they will pursue it in the civil court! Good luck with that.
virtually every single person facing a driving ban says why they should get one.
yes she had 11 points , and tried to avoid being done again
Did we not have a labour MP done prison time For saying her brother was driving
yes she had 11 points , and tried to avoid being done again
Did we not have a labour MP done prison time For saying her brother was driving
Labour and Tory have done it. The current PM fled from the scene of an accident.
the old nanny ;-) 04 Oct 24 14:14
How had she managed to get Insurance with 11 points , it must have her a Fortune ,Many would not cover her
Her premiums were probably helped by the fact she was a British sprinter which probably tempered in the Insurers eyes just what level of speed she would be actually capable of.
How had she managed to get Insurance with 11 points , it must have her a Fortune ,Many would not cover her
Her premiums were probably helped by the fact she was a British sprinter which probably tempered in the Insurers eyes just what level of speed she would be actually capable of.
You can't beat em though, they'll say that overturning it was an act of racism
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539