Nah they were probably too busy trying to dream up crimes to pin on old ladies ... or regular guys riding their bikes in streetwear lol.
Ho very er sporting of you
. Looked like a perfectly normal guy from the photo. In terms of "detection" logic levels the analogy which springs to mind is that of Inspector Clouseau lol.
EDIT:
Added after gohuluk' post
I get what you're saying but I deliberately used an inflammatory analogy to make the point that the PC's reasoning suggests (in fact reiterates) his view that it doesn't look right or normal for someone not to be wearing sport cycling clothing on a bicycle. The guy was wearing normal clothes and for that to be a reason to stop him as it doesn't look "normal" is just ridiculous. As ridiculous as some other prejudiced viewpoints which have sparked debate.
Stereotype pigeon-holing policing. If you don't slot in to what everyone else does or wears you must be guilty of something.
The concern is that the PC thinks it's odd in the first place and seriously expects people to take his viewpoint as credible grounds for suspicion. It surely calls his judgement into serious question. It's no surprise the crims run rings round them.
Would you care to provide us all with instances of where police officers have fabricated evidence against elderly females in order to secure convictions, and then it has been proven that they have done so?
I believe that the police often work on instinct. If something doesn't look quite right, and that may be based on a stereotype, a good copper will investigate. That, "investigation" may be very low level and be a simple good morning and an exchange of pleasantries. The other person may not even realise the copper was checking them out. At the other end of the spectrum, the officer may need to put them self in danger and forcibly detain someone so that their suspicions can be confirmed or negated. Then there is everything else in between.
People like you criticise the police when you perceive that they have failed to act, and then you criticise them again when they actively seek out wrong doing in order to protect people's property. What also comes across in your posts is the unpleasant stench of superiority. That you, in some way, occupy a higher intellectual plane and can see, with great clarity, all of the flaws within British policing.
Perhaps you could share with us precisely what does and what does not constitute grounds for the police to approach a person and investigate a suspicion. I can guarantee that your list of conditions will either be none existent or incomplete. The reason for this will be that it is impossible to list every circumstance. Much is based on gut instinct built up over years of dealing with every type of character known to mankind over a wide spectrum of circumstances. It's not a perfect system and it sometimes fails which results in an innocent person being inconvenienced to some extent. Other times, a criminal is caught and a person gets their property back. What's wrong with that?
You see, people like you are always wise after the event. They always know how it should have been done, when all of the facts are disclosed and they have had time to analyse all of the information in slow time. They then emerge from the shadows, pale, full of wisdom, and eager to display their intellectual prowess with a sneering, stomach churning superiority. It's simply awful to witness.
What would be more impressive would be if you were to share your knowledge of how it should be done. You could join the Special Constabulary, or volunteer police service as I believe it is called now, and demonstrate to the police where they have got it all wrong. Or, alternatively, you could continue to snipe from the sidelines and leave the dangerous stuff the the real women and men to get on with. I doubt that they will miss you, but they will always be there to put themselves in danger in order to help and protect you when you need it.
