Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think the police were out of order?

553 replies

Cailleachian · 29/08/2019 00:13

DS1 (18) has chronic insomnia. A about 6 month back, he started taking nightwalks as a way of wearing himself out and clearing his mind. Sometimes DS2 (17) keeps him company, Tonight, they went out for a walk about 11pm and about 1/2hour later DS2 came bolting in the door, shouting "Mum, Mum, its the police". My first thought was that one of them had got in a fight or been hurt.

I answered the door and a male and female police officer are standing there with DS1. The man asks to come in, telling me that he is here to charge DS2 with breach of the peace.

It transpires that they were stopped by the woman, who was questioning them about why they were walking about and whether they were from a "unit"(?!) when the man came over and started shouting at them and demanding to search them. DS1 was searched, but when DS2 was searched apparently he kept backing away, at which point the man grabbed his hands and pinned him against a wall. DS2 then swore at him repeatedly. Thoughout being told this DS2 is very upset, keeps interrupting the man over minutiae (and at times I felt like was trying to sort out DS1 and DS2's squabbles), but ultimately both of them agree that this is what happened.

In the end he didnt charge him, but to be honest, I'm a bit outraged that he even considered it. I dont know why my sons were stopped (acting suspiciously, out late at night while under 18, area where breakins happen were all reasons I was given). I dont know why he wasnt able to de-escalate a stop and search without physical aggression. And above all I dont understand why he thought it was a child protection issue, given that the only person that assaulted him in the street at night was the policeman himself.

Go-on Mumsnet, give me your best pearl clutching.

OP posts:
MrsBethel · 29/08/2019 14:43

I think we're in danger of mixing up two things: what we teach our children as 'nice' behaviour; and what constitutes a criminal offence.

Swearing at a police officer is not a criminal offence. There is a very good chance that the police officer will commit a crime themselves and pretend that a little colourful language has caused them "harassment, alarm or distress". Of course it won't have. But if the police officer lies and commits perjury, you could be convicted of a public order offence. When it comes to swearing, police officers are the most sensitive snowflakes in the entire known universe. Or some of them are fucking liars...

It is perfectly possible to want the child to behave better AND at the same time condemn the police for their infractions.

Blistory · 29/08/2019 14:43

Where does their age breach guidelines

www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/police-scotland/stop-and-search/

There is specific guidance as to how under 18s should be treated.

eeksville · 29/08/2019 14:46

It is perfectly possible to want the child to behave better AND at the same time condemn the police for their infractions

Now don't you go bringing common sense onto the thread.

ProfessorSlocombe · 29/08/2019 14:54

Now don't you go bringing common sense onto the thread.

Common sense ?

I'm out.

FAQs · 29/08/2019 15:04

@Blistory yep aware of guidelines, where do you think they breached them?

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 29/08/2019 15:09

I agree with @Lindy2 - one boy behaved himself and had no problem at all with the police. The other didn’t do as he was told, repeatedly, swore at the police, and the OP is surprised that the police reacted in the way they did.

I hope the boy will learn a lesson from this - that there is a right way and a wrong way to behave in this sort of situation, and he chose the wrong one, and is lucky the consequences were not worse. But if the OP complains to the police, all he will learn is that he can kick off at the police and mummy will go into battle for him - not a good lesson, imo.

FAQs · 29/08/2019 15:11

@MrsBethel a bit of a leap there from the OPs situation. Can only imagine how full the cells would be and how pissed off the custody officers would be if an officer arrested everyone who swore at them Grin almost the funniest thing I’ve read on here today. They also returned the OPs ‘boys’ home rather than arrest despite the younger ones behaviour.

MrsBethel · 29/08/2019 15:38

Look, I agree, legally the swearing is irrelevant. Absent that, what have we got?

We've got a minor who backed away when stopped by a plain clothes officer for an illegal stop and search.

Kko1986 · 29/08/2019 15:41

Write to get an official report, if your boys were just walking and an officer searched them without explaining I think there is a serious issue.

To everyone who said ds2 was wrong seriously? Imagine a scenario your teen is having a walk and suddenly an officer does a stop an search? You would be the first to make a complaint

Nicknacky · 29/08/2019 15:43

Police in Scotland had further guidance from the PF a couple a years ago and the “2 cop bop” doesn’t happen as often as swearing at a police officer in its own won’t be a criminal offence. And custody division have also underwent change and custody officers won’t necessarily accept the arrest of such a person.

Not withstanding that he is 17 so would generally be taken home to a parent or guardian anyway.

And no one on this thread can say it is an illegal search or otherwise. We weren’t there.

Barbie222 · 29/08/2019 15:46

In the nicest way, are you sure you are not being strung along a bit when your boys tell you they can't sleep and need to walk about at night to clear their heads? It wouldn't sit right with me. It might be time to suggest some alternative ways to unwind at night and see what their response is. There may be another reason for them to be out and about which they'd rather you didn't know. The talk of the "unit" would make me think that there was something likely going on which the police are keeping an eye on.

SuperSara · 29/08/2019 15:48

@CottonSock

I'd be pretty weary if stopped at night...

Me too; I'm absolutely knackered by 9pm!

SuperSara · 29/08/2019 15:52

@Kko1986

To everyone who said ds2 was wrong seriously? Imagine a scenario your teen is having a walk and suddenly an officer does a stop an search? You would be the first to make a complaint

Have you RTFT?

No we wouldn't "be the first to make a complaint", or the 10th or even 50th.

If 2 male youths are walking around late at night, whilst undercover police are patrolling, obviously on the lookout for criminals, then no, I definitely would not be making a complaint if they stopped my child to check them out.

ProfessorSlocombe · 29/08/2019 15:52

We've got a minor who backed away when stopped by a plain clothes officer for an illegal stop and search.

Unlawful, rather than illegal (if indeed it was).

ProfessorSlocombe · 29/08/2019 16:02

If 2 male youths are walking around late at night, whilst undercover police are patrolling, obviously on the lookout for criminals, then no, I definitely would not be making a complaint if they stopped my child to check them out.

Maybe I'm too worldly wise, but I would certainly complain if there had been a suggestion of profiling - especially by race. It's clear a lot of people on this thread have no experience of the everyday discrimination the police are still capable of (once again, not necessarily in this case).

1stmonkey · 29/08/2019 16:02

It sounds like they were resisting and then became verbally abusive. I'd say perfectly fair enough for the police to have acted the way they did.

ProfessorSlocombe · 29/08/2019 16:05

It sounds like they were resisting and then became verbally abusive.

Hmm

So why weren't they charged ? Or cautioned ?

Cailleachian · 29/08/2019 16:05

DS1 has (mild) aspengers, but is pretty sanguine; DS2 is NT, but more angsty and liable to get defensive when he feels under threat. Despite the police having no issues with DS1's behaviour, DS1 also believes they were treated shoddily, and is angry on the part of his brother.

The police have not suggested that either of them were doing anything wrong when they were first approached, other than "acting suspiciously", with no specific examples of how their behaviour was suspicious.

@user1473878824"So WHY didn't your son take his hands out of his pockets and WHY did he back away from being searched?"

He did take his hands out of his pockets - at what point is disputed, but everyone agrees he had them in his pockets while talking to the police woman and had taken them out of his pockets by the time DS1 was searched.

I would imagine that he backed away from being searched because its a weird for a teenage boy to have someone pat him down in a dark street late at night and he was a bit creeped out at the situation. At that point I think it would have been appropriate for the police officer to acknowledge his discomfort, and look for ways to resolve things, rather than escalate by using physical force.

OP posts:
user1471590586 · 29/08/2019 16:10

This worries me a bit about how the police handled and escalated the situation. What if one of the boys was autistic? This scares me for my son when he's older. Can they just randomly search anyone now, don't they need a reason or suspicion of criminal activity?

user1473878824 · 29/08/2019 16:12

"It that point I think it would have been appropriate for the police officer to acknowledge his discomfort, and look for ways to resolve things, rather than escalate by using physical force."

And if he had had a knife? I am sure there are lots of young men who look uncomfortable when they're about to be searched because they're carrying a weapon. Should they just have a chat to them instead?

user1471590586 · 29/08/2019 16:13

Just saw your latest post OP. I think you should ask the police for clarification.

MrsBethel · 29/08/2019 16:14

They are supposed to have reasonable grounds.

But, as in this case, they can always just make up some bollocks like "he kept his hands in his pockets too long" or whatever.

ProfessorSlocombe · 29/08/2019 16:16

The police have not suggested that either of them were doing anything wrong when they were first approached, other than "acting suspiciously", with no specific examples of how their behaviour was suspicious.

In which case the receipt will make for very interesting reading....

SOP will be to wheel out a senior officer and you'll get a concerned-look-face talk about crime in the area, how the police try to deal with the community in a sensitive and appropriate way, how grateful they are for your support, how much they value your feedback, how they strive to maintain the highest standards of ethical policing. That will probably be interspersed with a few local incidents that may have grazed the local headlines. Ideally with reference to the victims being young like your DC, so in reality they weren't harassing them but protecting them. Finally they'll thank you warmly for your support with policing in these difficult times. If they've remembered the course done their job, it'll only dawn on you a few hours later that they didn't admit anything, nor apologise for anything.

Nicknacky · 29/08/2019 16:17

Because they might not actually have anything to apologise for.......

Blistory · 29/08/2019 16:19

@FAQ - section 7 - I would suggest, based on the OP's first and subsequent post, that the officers concerned don't appear to have had much regards for section 7. I've only quoted the parts that stand out

7.4 In taking a decision to search a child or a young person, a constable must treat the need to safeguard and promote the well-being of that child or young person as a primary consideration. [7] Where a constable believes it to be more harmful to a child or young person to carry out a search than not, then the search should not
proceed and other measures to safeguard them should be considered.

7.5 Constables should ensure that the principles of fairness, integrity and respect apply equally to children and young people, as they do to adults.

7.9 Where a constable believes a search is necessary, they should be aware of the inherent power imbalance that exists between a constable and a child or young person and how this may affect their interactions with them. It should not be assumed, for example, that because a child or young person is compliant and/or silent, that they are fully comfortable with a search being carried out. Equally, if a child or young person appears to be acting unreasonably, the root of such behaviour may be in fear or confusion.

7.16 Even where there is no history of abuse, children and young people have reported that being searched by someone who is a stranger to them is both uncomfortable and intrusive.

7.17 Where a child or young person is becoming distressed during a search, consideration should be given to discontinuing the search or pausing it until a responsible adult can be present (where this is practicable and the child or young person wishes this to happen).

7.18 For the purposes of this Code, a "responsible adult" is defined as someone over the age of 18, with responsibility for the child or young person. This might include, for example, a parent or carer, an older sibling or a key worker. Their role is to support the child or young person and help them understand what is happening. Constables should note that a 'responsible adult' is distinct from an 'appropriate adult', a term which has its own meaning. [9]

7.19 When considering a search of a child or young person, a constable should attempt to minimise any embarrassment they might feel. This might include, for example, carrying out a search discreetly and away from a peer group. Where practicable, a constable should involve the child/young person in considering where the search should take place. A constable should not assume that places considered suitable for adults will be where a child or a young person would feel most at ease.

7.21 A constable should explain at each stage of a search of a child or young person what they are doing and why. Where a child requests a brief pause in the search (for example, to compose themselves) then this should be accommodated, where practicable. The search should be completed as swiftly as possible.

7.23 Where a search takes place and no item is found and the child or young person has provided their name, address and date of birth, a constable should clearly explain how the information will be stored, the length of time it will be kept and the purposes for which it may be used.

7.24 Following completion of a search, a child or a young person should be supplied with a receipt, which should include age appropriate information about stop and search, and details of how to make a complaint if the child or young person feels that they have been treated unfairly.

7.25 Constables should be aware that children and young people can find it difficult to access complaints processes, which are often designed by adults for adults. Where a complaint is received by the Police from or on behalf of a child or young person, consideration should be given to how best to respond in an age appropriate, timely and child-centred manner.

7.26 Where a search has proved to be negative, constables should consider a child or young person's individual needs and circumstances, when deciding whether or not to make their parents (or other care-givers) aware of the fact that they have been stopped and searched.

7.27 Factors to be considered by constables may include: the age of the child; the circumstances in which the stop and search took place; any views expressed by the child or young person and any perceived on-going risk to the child or young person and/or others.

7.28 Where a child or a young person has expressed a view about whether their parents (or other care-giver) should be informed of a stop and search, and a decision is taken which appears to contradict that view, then constables should clearly explain to the child or young person the reasons for their decision.

7.29 Constables should be aware that some children and young people may be placed at increased risk by their parents being notified of a search. This would include, for example, a child or young person living in a household where there is a history of domestic abuse.

7.30 More generally, constables should consider whether informing a child or a young person's parents (or care-giver) might inadvertently suggest that their child has been involved in wrong-doing, when they have not.

7.32 Carrying out stop and search in a respectful and age appropriate manner is likely to minimise the damage it can cause to children and young people's perceptions of the Police. [10] Constables should therefore be aware of the potential to build positive relationships with children and young people in their local community by following the steps outlined in this Code.

Swipe left for the next trending thread