yeah because independent police regulators always side with the public. Just look at any country.
Most countries don't even have an independent regulator for the police. They are regulated directly by government. Not here.

If you think that the regulator is not truly independent, that's a different matter. Do you have proof of this? Or is this another "obviously"?

So if you got stopped and searched by the police for no reason other than that you're white, you'd be ok with that?
Well how would I even know that's the reason I got stopped? But let's say I do know it. It would be annoying. Would I consider myself a "victim"? Absolutely not.

Not one, except that maybe black people mouth off a lot.
Your memory is worse than mine. I also suggested that maybe most stop and searches happen in major cities with a higher than average percentage of non-whites, in areas where crime is higher than average.

I've just noted the most obvious interpretation.
And drawn a conclusion based on that, and even gone to the trouble of accusing someone who disagrees with you of racism.

The fact you can't come up with anything remotely plausible as an alternatve suggests it's probably the correct one.
I don't consider my suggestions any more implausible that institutional racism.

Wow no convictions of police for a death in the last 50 years.
Who determined that the force was "unsuitable"? Was that the regulator? A court? Or the media? And if it's the regulator, who decided not to prosecute? Context please.

By the way, 642 people over a 15 year span is not that alarming, it's 43 a year, which is significantly lower than the number of people who get shot in USA. And how many of these are the result of a drug overdose or natural causes? Again, lacking context.

And G4S is a private company, they are not police. They are not regulated by the same people, at least I don't think so. I can't find from a quick google search who their regulator is. Also, if the evidence was inadmissible, there should be a record of why that was the case. Usually it's because the evidence in question is tenuous. The fact it got to court suggests whoever regulates them, whoever that may be, did their job, and the courts either decided there was no case to answer, or the courts are corrupt. This isn't police racism, and has nothing to do with the police regulator.