Community Monitoring Group Scrutiny Feedback Form October 2025.xlsx

	A	B
1	Field	Details
2	Clip 1
3	Borough	Tower Hamlets
4	Date of Viewing	22nd October 2025
5	Panel Members Present	MW, MG
6	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
7	Category of Material	BWV
8	Percieved Ethnicity	White
9	Incident Description	Control, Hold Build search of two individuals under s.23 Misuse of Drugs Act
10	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
11	GOWISELY Compliance	Yes
12	Use of Handcuffs	No
13	Was a Taser Used?	No
14	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
15	Object Found?	No
16	Did Object Match Suspicion?	N/A
17	Vulnerabilities Observed?	Yes - He told the officers he had a physical injury and had been released from prison where he'd developed a drug addiction
18	Officer Communication	Officers responded appropriately to vulnerabilities. Officers effectively and respectfully communicated.
19	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior	I thought the officer communicated well with the person and made an effort to establish rapport
20	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Neutral
21	Panel Assessment	The officer's BWV started once they had already stopped the person so we weren't able to assess if he had (per the written grounds and oral GOWISELY) walked off at speed or appeared to have picked up drugs. Please can officers be reminded to turn their BWV on promptly.
22	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal);Best practice feedback (informal)
23	MPS Action Taken
24
25
26	Field	Details
27	Clip 2
28	Borough	Tower Hamlets
29	Date of Viewing	22nd October 2025
30	Panel Members Present	MW, MG
31	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
32	Category of Material	BWV
33	Percieved Ethnicity	South Asian
34	Incident Description	Search of a small group of friends for cannabis
35	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
36	GOWISELY Compliance	Partial - Didn't obviously show warrant card but may have been wearing it around neck
37	Use of Handcuffs	Yes - compliant
38	Was a Taser Used?	Yes
39	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?
40	Object Found?	Yes - Cannabis
41	Did Object Match Suspicion?	Yes
42	Vulnerabilities Observed?	Yes - All appear to have been minors, one may have been UI
43	Officer Communication	Officers did not effectively and respectfully communicate (Child First approach).
44	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior	Officer behaviour escalated the encounter with concerns that officer treated the individual differently due to a protected characteristic; in this instance: race.
45	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Amber
46	Panel Assessment	The officer's tone was frankly awful. This was a stop by three plainsclothes police officers of three minors aged between 15 and 16. It must be stressed at the outset that just because the officer found drugs and a weapon it does not retrospectively justify the way he spoke to the child detained. The officer approached the child and asked him to to keep his hands still. The child moved his hands to tug up his trousers. This is a reflexive gesture we have seen many times before. The officer immediately swore at him, grabbed his arms and handcuffed him. It was a disproportionate and overly aggressive response. I question whether the child's race resulted in the officer believing he was an adult and treating him as such (adultification bias). During the interaction, the officer told him to "grow up", referred to "safeguarding crap like that" and swore at him. This happened even after the child said he was 16. The officer also threatened to Taser the child's friend. He also switched the child's handcuffs to the rear stack position 6 minutes in, even though the child was sat compliantly on the wall. At one point, the child's phone rang, he asked the officer if it was his mum and the officer replied "maybe, maybe not". The officer also sarcastically called him a "charming young man". I fail to see how this is an appropriate way to talk to a child or how an officer can expect cooperation in response. Further, there was no consideration of the fact this is a child with drugs and money on them who might very well need safeguarding, which the officer was so dismissive of. Although the officer might focus on the "success" of this search, it was a very disappointing watch and I have serious concerns about how this officer interacts with the public, particularly minors of colour. The officer should also be aware his BWV was obscured at the start - this shouldn't happen.
47	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal);Best practice feedback (informal)
48	MPS Action Taken
49
50	Field	Details
51	Clip 3
52	Borough	Tower Hamlets
53	Date of Viewing	22nd October 2025
54	Panel Members Present	MW, MG
55	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
56	Category of Material	BWV
57	Percieved Ethnicity	South Asian
58	Incident Description	Stop of people believed to be using NOS
59	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
60	GOWISELY Compliance	Compliant
61	Use of Handcuffs	No
62	Was a Taser Used?	No
63	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
64	Object Found?	Yes - NOS Canister
65	Did Object Match Suspicion?	Yes
66	Vulnerabilities Observed?	No
67	Officer Communication	Officers effectively and respectfully communicated.
68	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior
69	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Green
70	Panel Assessment	No issues with this search, officer had a good tone
71	Category of Recommendations	Best practice feedback (informal)
72	MPS Action Taken
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100