Police Failing to Provide Tampons/Pads to Women Detainees

The BBC article doesn't state that attached to the letter sent by the ICVA to Amber Rudd was a legal option stating that the conditions were likely to be in breach article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the right to private and family life.

The BBC just says that the police service could be in breach of rights.

The ICVA have already sought a professional legal opinion makes their letter rather more significant and adds strength to their argument.

Why did the BBC neglect to acknowledge this? Its an important part of the story.

www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/04/ignoring-womens-needs-in-custody-breaches-their-rights-says-watchdog?CMP=share_btn_tw
Ignoring women’s needs in custody breaches their rights, says watchdog

There is no way round this. The point that x service can not afford to treat women with dignity for x reason is repeated thrown around. Its bullshit. Money CAN ALWAYS be found by politicians / managers for issues they are passionate about and value.

Women have a RIGHT to dignity and they are ENTITLED to it.

YY. Not surprised to see this misogynist spouting off again.

This happened to me in hospital. I was 19 and my period came on while I was in a ward. A nurse gave me a pad from her own hangbag as they didn't have any on the ward. I didn't have any other clothes to wear and she gave me some nhs pj bottoms to wear. It was a humiliating experience really.

Vulnerable people with MH issues should never end up in police custody but their families don't know how to access out of hours services so they call the police instead.

This is an interesting and wholly inaccurate take at least locally.

One of the first things you are given when you encounter MH services is the contact details for the OOH service, because everyone knows how important it is to have that contact. Unfortunatly, because MH doesn't get proportionate funding, there is almost nothing OOH can do to help (there's no beds, and they got rid of psych liaisons in A&E) and so the only "place of safety" available tends to be a police cell.

The police have always been notoriously bad at looking after people with MH difficulties, especially when those people have committed crimes. If this is what this is, then it shows a deep problem within that station with regard to working with vulnerable women. And Lloyd's views about women and those with MH problems are par for the course in the police service sadly, ime.

Lloyd, would you consider it acceptable to have a male prisoner denied access to a toilet and made to sit in his own faeces or urine? If not, why not? And if not, in what way does that situation differ from making a woman sit in her menstrual blood?

Again with the contempt. No "frothing" happening here - that only exists in your mind Lloyd.

No one here is suggesting they have all the answers or that solving this is easy. You are simply refusing to accept there's any kind of issue, which is what people here are responding to.

Also, I'd be intrigued to know how paper suits are designed to prevent people from attempting to asphyxiate themselves? But I guess you aren't going to respond now you've had your hissy fit because women won't listen and agree with you.

Great call. I work in a large sized town which now has an average of 5 officers on. Where are you finding the 2 female officers for the cell watch for the x amount of hours she is in custody?

Let me make this very clear.

If there is a Human Rights issue here, then the police are LEGALLY OBLIGED to make sure there are enough staff. They CAN NOT duck out of this legal obligation by saying they can afford it BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

This means they need to take whatever measures necessary to ensure human rights are maintained.

This might mean that women have to be taken to a more centralised police station where there ARE female people officers. And the police need to do more to recruit enough female officers.

There is no way round this. The point that x service can not afford to treat women with dignity for x reason is repeated thrown around. Its bullshit. Money CAN ALWAYS be found by politicians / managers for issues they are passionate about and value.

Women have a RIGHT to dignity and they are ENTITLED to it.

@LloydSpinjago your total contempt for women represents the problem being discussed here. Fucking horrific that you deal with vulnerable women on a daily basis.

Such a shame you didn't join up since you have all the answers. Does that frothing behind your keyboard make you feel better with your little digs at strangers across the internet? I honestly feel sorry for you that your life is that empty. I hope you start to feel better soon.

Ok I'm out. It's all a massive patriarchal conspiracy to deny women who have been arrested sanitary products. It's the only explanation.

"Would I want an investigation lasting years looking to blame absolutely anyone other than the person who hurt themselves, potentially losing my livelihood and possibly even going to prison?"

Hahahahahaha you're taking the piss now.

The Met have murdered people, lied to cover it up, lied some more, and then when it's accepted that they did murder someone, no-one gets found guilty.

The idea that they can never be at fault when people are harmed is pretty scary.

@LloydSpinjago your total contempt for women represents the problem being discussed here. Fucking horrific that you deal with vulnerable women on a daily basis.

I met a woman once who was an armed officer in the met and she had to leave because of the relentless sexism. Calling her "cunt" all the time, all sorts of stuff.

Poor treatment of women is hard to believe of the police? I mean come off it.

My local police force has a long history of failing women, murdering black men with no come-back, accepting bribes, and other forms of corruption.

These people who accept that whatever the police do must be the right thing are deluded and / or stupid and / or just hate certain sections of society.

Or are one of them I guess. Lots of in-club and cronyism stuff, which makes it more difficult to investigate when things happen that are wrong. They close ranks and they lie. We all know this.

Anyway in that example it doesn’t say she was a suicide risk

Well it wouldn't would it. Doesn't make as good a headline.

(I've checked their posting history in the last month, and they appear to have consistently authoritarian and anti-women views across the board), then we can see for ourselves exactly what (hopefully very small) subset of professionals in the criminal justice system would happily perpetrate what looks (cf Red's post above) like a fairly obvious human rights abuse

Well done Miss Marple! Checking posting history massive gold star to you. However I'm "happily" perpetuating nothing of the sort.

Would I prefer someone to be sat uncomfortably in their bodily fluids rather than dying? Yes.

Would I want an investigation lasting years looking to blame absolutely anyone other than the person who hurt themselves, potentially losing my livelihood and possibly even going to prison? No.

So again, what would you do in that situation?

If you can commit suicide with a tampon (?) I’d have thought you could also commit tampon with a paper suit....so why was she allowed one of those?

Because they're designed in a way to stop that. Tampons sanitary towels aren't

"I've checked their posting history in the last month, and they appear to have consistently authoritarian and anti-women views across the board"

What a surprise.

This is a police officer, it's no surprise that women and girls are being failed so much. We're in the minority arrested, so things aren't set up to accommodate our needs but the needs of men, and the people paid to look after us think that removing all the clothes from a psychologically disturbed woman and then leaving her to sit in her own menstrual blood is an appropriate and sensible approach.

Awesome.

I get that Reinette. Again, you're not really disagreeing with the point of the thread which is that it's wrong to deny someone basic resources that protect their dignity, no matter what the reason is. The fact that this is caused by a lack of suitable care due to money doesn't take anyway from that argument.

there's a lack of staff to deal with the needs of the people they have in custody. That's the issue

I'd say the basic issue is, as highlighted on the NHS thread, money.

Vulnerable people with MH issues should never end up in police custody but their families don't know how to access out of hours services so they call the police instead.

The police can only hold them in custody until they are assessed by out of hours services then they would be moved elsewhere if there is room or sent home, so back to square 1 again. If the person is behaving in such a way they are a danger to themselves then every effort will be made to stop them from hurting themselves and others. This might seem cruel but whats really cruel is not having the services to deal with people who need help before they end up in custody.

The police are not mental health experts and shouldn't be asked by families or the public to deal with people who have MH problems.

They have to make split second decisions as to whether a person is a danger to themselves or the public based on what they are told and what they see in front of them. If a persons been taken into custody to protect themselves then the procedure is to minimise the risk to that person. Some of the actions taken to minimise that persons risk may not always seem to be the sort of treatment you or I would like.

Gosh, the very thought of providing sanitary products! Dear lord! The things that Real People need are provided, the things that - ugh - women need are special extra minority things that shouldn't really be talked about. Asking for them to be supplied as standard is really taking things too far! The cheek of it!!!

Just catching up and see Lloyd has compared menstrual blood to shit.

And also that only a professional cleaning team would be expected to deal with it, therefore there is no-one available to help the woman if she needs it, due to the blood.

I mean come on. As soon as she's started bleeding everywhere she's a biohazard. How is that beneficial to anyone at all.

You'd think this would be a perfect use of the pupil premium really, wouldn't you?

Absolutely! But no, Ofsted feel it’s not far reaching enough. And by that they mean it’s not benefitting our highlighted target of underachieving deprived white boys. And I accept it’s not but it’s certainly, without any doubt, benefitting deprived girls of all colours.

If you can commit suicide with a tampon (?) I’d have thought you could also commit tampon with a paper suit....so why was she allowed one of those?

Anyway in that example it doesn’t say she was a suicide risk. It also doesn’t say she was complaining about the lack of range of products. Clearly says she was denied anything.

'And where exactly are they going to get all this extra money from for extra staff to deal with the occasional female in custody? Most people who end up in custody are male. Females make up a small number. They cannot employ an ad hoc extra officer or 2 to supervise a female who may or may not need to use sanitary products.'

What Lloyd was saying was that the woman was probably denied sanitary products because there weren't enough staff to supervise a very vulnerable prisoner. It's not about whether the woman is menstruating or not - there's a lack of staff to deal with the needs of the people they have in custody. That's the issue.

So rather than pay for enough staff

And where exactly are they going to get all this extra money from for extra staff to deal with the occasional female in custody? Most people who end up in custody are male. Females make up a small number. They cannot employ an ad hoc extra officer or 2 to supervise a female who may or may not need to use sanitary products.

there would be a similar bio-hazard risk from menstrual blood that was flowing freely, if not more likely to be got on any fabric available and launched in a similar manner

Inside a paper suit (although the vast majority of people arrested don't need to change out of their own clothing, its only if its a serious offence they're suspected of and their clothing needs to be forensically processed so they would be given a paper suit) or inside their own clothing is easier to contain than a blood soaked tampon/towel being thrown around and aimed at officers.

I suppose you could strip off and throw your clothes at an officer but a large item of clothing is both slower to be thrown at you and easier to see so easier to avoid. A small tampon is quicker when thrown and more difficult to see when being held/concealed and thrown at you so more difficult to avoid. I've not experienced free flowing blood myself except immediately after giving birth so I cant answer that.

Well, if Lloyd is telling the truth about being professionally involved with this sort of thing (I've checked their posting history in the last month, and they appear to have consistently authoritarian and anti-women views across the board), then we can see for ourselves exactly what (hopefully very small) subset of professionals in the criminal justice system would happily perpetrate what looks (cf Red's post above) like a fairly obvious human rights abuse.

Leaving someone sitting in their own menstrual blood is no different from leaving them sitting in their own shit - it is cruel and inhumane treatment.

Dramatic improvement since School offer them free in the toilets.

You'd think this would be a perfect use of the pupil premium really, wouldn't you?