"Get Out of the F***ing Car!" TSG Cops Cleared After Bizarre Misconduct Hearing for Doing Their Job

Two decorated officers faced a misconduct panel for using "strong language" while arresting a dangerous criminal. Is this the UK in 2025, or have we gone mad?

The recent misconduct hearing faced by Met Police Constables Mahad Abdalla and Richard Wills has left many in the policing community—and the public—utterly baffled. The incident happened two years ago, but the officers were cleared of any wrongdoing in November. These two officers, who serve in the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group (TSG), were accused of misconduct while handling a driver who recklessly defied police lawful orders, put the public at risk, and ultimately faced charges for multiple criminal offences. If this isn't a glaring example of misplaced priorities, then what is?

Let's set the scene. PC Abdalla and PC Wills were part of a highly specialised team tasked with tackling the most dangerous and volatile situations in London. On the evening in question, their attention was drawn to a BMW whose occupants were behaving suspiciously, employing tactics known to police as methods used by gang members to avoid detection. These methods included leaning back in their seats to obscure their visibility behind the car's A-frame, frequent glances at the police vehicle, and driving a car—a BMW—commonly associated with gang-related activity (sorry, BMW owners). When officers signalled the car to stop, the driver initially complied—only to speed off without warning, forcing officers into a short pursuit.

---

---

Upon cornering the vehicle, the driver continued to rev the engine, creating an immediate risk of injury to officers and the public. It was a chaotic and dangerous situation, exactly the kind of environment the TSG is trained to handle. Yet, their decisive actions—aimed at neutralising a threat—led to both officers being dragged through an unnecessary, stressful and demeaning misconduct hearing, leaving many to wonder about the priorities of those who instigated it.

The Reality of the Incident

What makes this case so outrageous is the context. These officers weren't dealing with a minor traffic stop. They were dealing with a suspect, Mr. A (that's right, he is afforded anonymity, but the police officers are not), who:

1. Drove dangerously to evade police,

2. Crashed into another vehicle during his attempted escape, and

3. Was found to have cannabis, driving without a licence or insurance.

Despite these facts, the panel scrutinised every baton strike, every command shouted, and even the language used during the heat of the moment. Let's be clear—this was not a tea party. The officers were dealing with a driver who could have had weapons, drugs, or worse, the intent to harm. At a time when violent crime in London feels increasingly out of control, these officers willingly put themselves in harm's way to protect the public and uphold the law. Their courage in confronting danger should be applauded, not questioned.

---

Have a story or video you’d like us to cover? Share it with our team of experienced former emergency services and armed forces personnel at contact@emergency-services.news – we’d love to hear from you!

---

Moreover, this was far from an isolated event—it stands as a stark reminder of the daily dangers faced by frontline officers. The streets of London, plagued by gang violence and rising violent crime, demand swift and decisive action from the police—a reality seemingly lost on those removed from the harsh truths of street-level crime. The suspect's reckless behaviour posed an immediate and undeniable threat, not only to himself but to everyone around him. One would think such actions by the officers to neutralise that threat would be universally understood and supported. Apparently not.

The idea that PC Abdalla's shouted commands, including "get out of the f***ing car," could form the basis of a misconduct allegation is genuinely laughable. Amid a volatile and dangerous situation, officers are trained to use strong language to gain control and ensure compliance. It's called command presence, not rudeness—something that no desk-bound critic with zero exposure to the chaos of real-life confrontations on the Thin Blue Line could ever hope to grasp (not that Police Officers in the Met are even allowed to wear thin blue line commemorative patches).

Adding the Officers' Impeccable Records

Both PC Abdalla and PC Wills have exemplary service records, with glowing testimonials from colleagues and superiors. PC Wills has been described as a "role model and a credit to the service," while PC Abdalla is highly regarded for his respectful and professional demeanour in challenging situations. These are not rogue officers—they are dedicated professionals who have proven their commitment to serving the public time and time again. And yet this is how ‘we’ treat them?

---

---

The misconduct panel itself recognised this, noting their significant experience, maturity, and the consistent, truthful evidence they provided during the hearing. These are precisely the officers you'd want on the frontlines in dangerous situations—not ones you'd drag through what many now regard as witch hunts, orchestrated to placate a vocal minority of liberal bureaucrats who appear entirely disconnected from the harsh realities of tackling serious crime in the UK.

These glowing testimonials underscore the absurdity of this hearing. Officers like Abdalla and Wills, with a history of exemplary service, should be commended, not questioned. Their commitment to duty and proven integrity speak volumes, making the initiation of this hearing seem even more unjustified.

The Obvious Danger They Faced

Let's paint a clearer picture of the danger. At the time of the incident, the area was a hotbed of gang violence, with officers briefed on recent armed robberies, violent gang reprisals, and the presence of weapons such as machetes and firearms. The blue BMW's erratic behaviour and desperate attempts to flee only amplified the threat. These officers were operating in a life-threatening situation, forced to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. Drawing from their training and hard-earned experience, they acted decisively—because no officer should be expected to expose themselves to unnecessary risk in the line of duty.

---

Love ESN Report? Share the support!

Invite your friends, colleagues, and fellow supporters of emergency services to join the conversation. Together, we can amplify the voices that matter most.

---

The panel itself acknowledged the "significant risks" the officers faced and the volatile environment in which they operated. This wasn't a routine stop; it was a high-stakes confrontation with a dangerous suspect who had already proven he was willing to endanger lives to avoid capture. Yet, in the aftermath, the officers who acted decisively to protect public safety found themselves under fire—a gross injustice considering the circumstances.

A Bizarre & Misguided Focus on "Respect"

But it gets even more absurd. Among the allegations against PC Abdalla was that his language showed a lack of respect toward Mr. A. Lack of respect? This was a man who had shown no respect for the law, the safety of other road users, or the police themselves. The fact that such an accusation was even entertained is a glaring reminder of how soft and misguided society has become. Are we seriously expecting officers, in the midst of a high-risk stop, to politely ask dangerous suspects, "Would you kindly step out of the vehicle?" Let's be clear—this wasn't a law-abiding citizen returning home after a hard day's work. This was a wrong'un in every sense of the word.

This focus on perceived disrespect over real risks sends a dangerous message. It suggests that the comfort of criminals is now a higher priority than the safety of the public or the officers sworn to protect them. Welcome to the UK in 2025, where the liberal establishment appears more concerned with the feelings of offenders than the safety of emergency workers and the public they serve. This twisted logic begs the question: how can anyone expect the police to protect society effectively while being shackled by such nonsensical expectations? Please, someone, make it make sense!

---

Share ESN Report with your team!

Get exclusive access for your group at a special rate.

---

Panel's Strong Praise

Despite the absurdity of the charges, even the misconduct panel praised the officers for their professionalism and quick thinking. They found that both officers acted in good faith, with their actions entirely aligned with their training and aimed at ensuring public safety.

Many have questioned why these officers faced a misconduct hearing in the first place. Was it the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) that directed the Metropolitan Police to hold this hearing? If so, it raises serious concerns about their judgment. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that the officers did what was necessary to safeguard the public and themselves. The fact that the suspect complained about being spoken to "rudely" highlights how utterly detached from reality this decision appears. It makes those responsible for initiating the hearing seem not only out of touch but downright incompetent.

The panel's findings were unequivocal: the use of force was "proportionate and justified" given the circumstances, and neither officer breached any professional standards. Their actions, undertaken in the heat of a life-threatening situation, were nothing short of exemplary.

A Broader Attack on the TSG?

This case also raises a troubling question: why are TSG officers becoming frequent targets of overzealous scrutiny? These officers operate in high-pressure, high-risk environments, often facing armed gangs, violent offenders, and life-threatening situations. Most of us have seen the harrowing images of TSG officers forced to confront angry, violent crowds without their protective gear—gear deemed "oppressive" by critics who seem oblivious to the risks these officers face.

Their role is nothing short of essential, yet they are under the microscope now more than ever. Could it be that their proactive, uncompromising approach to policing clashes with the growing trend of leniency in how crime is addressed?

To many in the policing community and their law-abiding supporters, it feels as though the TSG is being unfairly vilified. If this unjust trend continues, it risks undermining the very proactive policing strategies that are crucial to keeping our communities safe. By discouraging such approaches, we're not just failing our officers—we're failing our society.

---

---

A System in Need of a Reality Check?

This hearing is a sobering reminder of how far we've drifted from supporting those on the frontlines. Officers like PC Abdalla and PC Wills put their lives on the line to protect us, yet they are treated as the villains when they do exactly what their training demands. It's no wonder morale in the police force is at an all-time low and so many people want to leave.

The public needs to wake up to the reality that officers are not the enemy. They are the thin blue line standing between order and chaos. Instead of dragging officers like PC Wills and PC Abdalla through baseless hearings, we should be asking why more isn't being done to support them. The very fabric of public safety relies on the courage and dedication of officers like these, and undermining them is not just short-sighted—it's dangerous.

To PC Abdalla and PC Wills, ESN Report stands firmly with you. Your actions on that day were not only justified—they were exemplary. You deserve praise, not punishment, for doing what so many wouldn't dare to do: confronting danger head-on to keep us safe.

To the readers, it's time to stand up for the officers who stand up for us. Let's ensure they get the support and respect they deserve.

OPINION: Support for PC Mahad Abdalla and PC Richard Wills

We stand steadfastly behind PC Mahad Abdalla and PC Richard Wills, two exemplary officers of the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group (TSG). These officers were exonerated in a misconduct hearing that, in our opinion, should never have been convened, given the clear justification for their actions.

The incident at the heart of this controversy involved a dangerous suspect who flouted police orders, recklessly endangered public safety, and attempted to evade capture. In such a volatile and life-threatening scenario, their use of strong, commanding language and reasonable force was not only appropriate but essential to gaining control and neutralising the threat.