This is just shocking (trigger warning -racism)

[iloverock]

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/department-for-education-metropolitan-police-services-scotland-yard-hackney-b988292.html

Please read the formal review.

Essentially the teaching staff called the police because a black 15 year old girl smelt of cannabis. She was taken to a room and strip searched. She was on her period. Her mother wasn't notified. She was not given the opportunity for an appropriate adult to be present.

I hope all school issue a letter to parents about this because children be scared to go school. Especially people of colour which will be scared Monday morning to send their children school.
I think all involved needs to be sacked and not allowed to teach again or even be a police officer.

The children have been holding mass protests at the schook (it’s on tiktok) and are really standing up for Child Q. It’s really heartening to see. Not that they should ever have had to do that in the first place.

@Quirkyme

Apparently the teacher who called the police on the girl has been sacked.

Need something to be done about the police officers involved too though.

I would regard the teachers who hauled the child out of the exam and agreed to her being interviewed and strip searched as the most culpable here. If that includes the person who called the police, fine, but it does look as if s/he was not the only person who shouldn't be in teaching.

It hasn't just brought her down a peg or two. It's annihilated her. Cruel and unusual punishment contravenes the Geneva Convention!

It's left her frightened and suicidal.

It seems odd how she conveniently smelt of weed during an important exam. The school had to inform the police and take her out of the exam...

One small ray of light from this is that she had a parent who she could open up to, who cared enough about her to take her to the GP. And from there, people who knew how atrociously she had been treated so made the necessary referrals and actions.

Who knows what could have happened if she never spoke to her mum. Perhaps she would have actually gone through with suicide. Thank goodness her mother has been able to (so far) prevent that.

It can be an example to us all to keep trying our best to keep the door open to our kids so they feel they can open up and talk to us no matter what.

I would regard the teachers who hauled the child out of the exam and agreed to her being interviewed and strip searched as the most culpable here. If that includes the person who called the police, fine, but it does look as if s/he was not the only person who shouldn't be in teaching.

I have to admit I am suspicious as to exactly what the teacher who called the police said. A number of posters are teachers and have said that there is no way that they would be able to get a police officer out because a child smelt of weed - some have said that they can’t get a police officer out even when they have evidence of drug dealing! Yet somehow this teacher managed to get two female officers out, for them to strip search the girl and there still to be time for her to be put back into her exam. If I remember correctly GCSE exams only take 1 to 2 hours - that is ridiculously quick! If the teacher lied then that explains why the police came, why they strip searched (something that should only happen for Class A drugs) and why that teacher had been sacked.

@HumunaHey

One small ray of light from this is that she had a parent who she could open up to, who cared enough about her to take her to the GP. And from there, people who knew how atrociously she had been treated so made the necessary referrals and actions.

Who knows what could have happened if she never spoke to her mum. Perhaps she would have actually gone through with suicide. Thank goodness her mother has been able to (so far) prevent that.

It can be an example to us all to keep trying our best to keep the door open to our kids so they feel they can open up and talk to us no matter what.

So true .Great post

@blueshoes

Quirkyme: Apparently the teacher who called the police on the girl has been sacked.

Where did you hear this? First time I read of this.

It is right though but I would say the teacher got off lightly. She can just find another job. I feel there should be criminal charges against the teacher for her vindictive and racist behaviour.

The poor girl.

Children who go to the school have posted it on Twitter.

@Mumoftwoinprimary

I would regard the teachers who hauled the child out of the exam and agreed to her being interviewed and strip searched as the most culpable here. If that includes the person who called the police, fine, but it does look as if s/he was not the only person who shouldn't be in teaching.

I have to admit I am suspicious as to exactly what the teacher who called the police said. A number of posters are teachers and have said that there is no way that they would be able to get a police officer out because a child smelt of weed - some have said that they can’t get a police officer out even when they have evidence of drug dealing! Yet somehow this teacher managed to get two female officers out, for them to strip search the girl and there still to be time for her to be put back into her exam. If I remember correctly GCSE exams only take 1 to 2 hours - that is ridiculously quick! If the teacher lied then that explains why the police came, why they strip searched (something that should only happen for Class A drugs) and why that teacher had been sacked.

I’m trying to find the link I read earlier in the week which basically said that a teacher reported the smell to another and they contacted the safer schools police officer (or some such title) who would usually have been on site but wasn’t due to covid. This officer recommended the school call the police non emergency number.

I’m trying to find the link I read earlier in the week which basically said that a teacher reported the smell to another and they contacted the safer schools police officer (or some such title) who would usually have been on site but wasn’t due to covid. This officer recommended the school call the police non emergency number.

Yes - that sounds familiar. But how did “child smells of cannabis in a city where there is a constant smell of cannabis in the air” become something that was seen as enough of a priority that in less than the 2 hours it takes to do a GCSE mock they managed to get two female police officers out, search her bag etc, strip search her and get her back into the exam.

@SlashBeef

As a POC no I'm not that shocked, sadly.

@SlashBeef as a police officer neither am I. I am not in the Met and with some of their practices I never would be.

@Mumoftwoinprimary. Yes very good question, although apparently it was initially 4 officers (unless there's been an update) and the two female ones took her in the room.

So yes, 4 officers for a child 'smelling of cannabis'

Doesn't add up, I agree.

At the very least I suspect the teacher told them there was possibility of class A drug dealing.

I just get angrier and upset the more I read or think about it.

[quote DysonSphere]**@Mumoftwoinprimary. Yes very good question, although apparently it was initially 4 officers (unless there's been an update) and the two female ones took her in the room.

So yes, 4 officers for a child 'smelling of cannabis'

Doesn't add up, I agree.

At the very least I suspect the teacher told them there was possibility of class A drug dealing.

I just get angrier and upset the more I read or think about it.[/quote]
Read the case review, it's spelled out v clearly

I have read the report (twice).

She smelled of cannabis. She had previously smelled of cannabis. She knew someone who had been excluded for drugs.

Really not getting why those three things meant four police officers went zooming over to the school.

The report does say there are inconsistencies in the accounts of those involved including in the initial conversation between the police and the school.

If the teacher who called to police lied then it explains everything - including why she has now been sacked.

I just read this on LinkedIn

SMELL OF CANNABIS: POLICING BLACK PEOPLE : POLICE SNIFFER DOGS MORE HONEST THAN OFFICERS : UNWRITTEN RULES

The smell of cannabis precipitated events in the child Q case.

It is impossible to disprove whether someone has or has not smelt cannabis. That is why this pretext has been the staple ‘go to’ ground for unlawfully policing the black community.

If a police officer claims to have smelt cannabis there is no way of disproving this.

There is ‘unwritten’ police training rules and guidance on how to stop and search black people when we’re driving a vehicle or walking in public. If these rules were written down they would read something like this:

1. Smell of cannabis (SoC)

1.1. If you see a black person and you want to establish reasonable grounds for stopping and searching them and you don’t have any reasonable grounds, use the smell of cannabis (SoC) ground for stopping and searching the black person.

1. Why the SoC ground is so effective

2.1. It is impossible for anyone to disprove that as a police officer you did not smell cannabis, because you are not a sniffer dog i.e sniffer dogs have a powerful sense of smell, are honest and therefore don’t lie.

2.2. SoC gives you as a police officer the power to detain and search black people under s23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973.

2.3. When detaining and searching black people due to a SoC you can search for other things and effectively go on a fishing expedition and see if you can get them arrested for something else e.g they may legitimately have another person’s bank card in their possession but you don’t know that and so that gives you reasonable grounds to arrest them on suspicion of theft or handling stolen goods etc.

2.4. When detaining and searching black people due to a SoC you may be able to justify the use of handcuffs i.e. use force, which may lead to the arrest of that black person, if they resist and physically make contact with you in the process we may also be able to charge them for assaulting you or your colleagues.

FAQs

Q
Isn’t it unlawful to stop black people if I falsely claim a SoC?

A
See 2.1 It is impossible for anyone to disprove that you did not smell cannabis. So it’s not whether it’s unlawful, it’s whether it can be proven and It’s impossible to prove.

Q
isn’t it unfair on black people?

A
No. It’s what we do.

Q
Isn’t it racist?

A
It can’t be racist - black people commit crimes.

I have no background knowledge.

But is the implication in the latest posts that the teacher deliberately targeted the girl by using the 'smell of cannabis' police ruse as a dog whistle to get the police officers (possibly known to the teacher) to come out double quick to do a strip search in what appears to be within the time it takes for a mock paper? I hope I am not reading too much into this.

@JamieNorthlife

I just read this on LinkedIn

SMELL OF CANNABIS: POLICING BLACK PEOPLE : POLICE SNIFFER DOGS MORE HONEST THAN OFFICERS : UNWRITTEN RULES

The smell of cannabis precipitated events in the child Q case.

It is impossible to disprove whether someone has or has not smelt cannabis. That is why this pretext has been the staple ‘go to’ ground for unlawfully policing the black community.

If a police officer claims to have smelt cannabis there is no way of disproving this.

There is ‘unwritten’ police training rules and guidance on how to stop and search black people when we’re driving a vehicle or walking in public. If these rules were written down they would read something like this:

1. Smell of cannabis (SoC)

1.1. If you see a black person and you want to establish reasonable grounds for stopping and searching them and you don’t have any reasonable grounds, use the smell of cannabis (SoC) ground for stopping and searching the black person.

1. Why the SoC ground is so effective

2.1. It is impossible for anyone to disprove that as a police officer you did not smell cannabis, because you are not a sniffer dog i.e sniffer dogs have a powerful sense of smell, are honest and therefore don’t lie.

2.2. SoC gives you as a police officer the power to detain and search black people under s23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973.

2.3. When detaining and searching black people due to a SoC you can search for other things and effectively go on a fishing expedition and see if you can get them arrested for something else e.g they may legitimately have another person’s bank card in their possession but you don’t know that and so that gives you reasonable grounds to arrest them on suspicion of theft or handling stolen goods etc.

2.4. When detaining and searching black people due to a SoC you may be able to justify the use of handcuffs i.e. use force, which may lead to the arrest of that black person, if they resist and physically make contact with you in the process we may also be able to charge them for assaulting you or your colleagues.

FAQs

Q
Isn’t it unlawful to stop black people if I falsely claim a SoC?

A
See 2.1 It is impossible for anyone to disprove that you did not smell cannabis. So it’s not whether it’s unlawful, it’s whether it can be proven and It’s impossible to prove.

Q
isn’t it unfair on black people?

A
No. It’s what we do.

Q
Isn’t it racist?

A
It can’t be racist - black people commit crimes.

So the last two Q and A's in this section, particularly the last

The last Q with the response "it can't be racist, black people commit crimes". I don't even know what to say...

The person answering with such foul answers is literally justifying racism.

@Quirkyme I read that as satire/sarcasm.

@Quirkyme, I think the person that wrote the text was trying to highlight the insanity of the questioning and justifications used to search black people because they SoC.

The text, also shows that the teacher used the same justification by subjectively saying she smelled cannabis.

JamieNorthlife

@Quirkyme, I think the person that wrote the text was trying to highlight the insanity of the questioning and justifications used to search black people because they SoC.

“The text, also shows that the teacher used the same justification by subjectively saying she smelled cannabis.“

@JamieNorthlife
That text might have been sarcasm but it rang true. Thanks for posting it.

@HumunaHey

One small ray of light from this is that she had a parent who she could open up to, who cared enough about her to take her to the GP. And from there, people who knew how atrociously she had been treated so made the necessary referrals and actions.

Who knows what could have happened if she never spoke to her mum. Perhaps she would have actually gone through with suicide. Thank goodness her mother has been able to (so far) prevent that.

It can be an example to us all to keep trying our best to keep the door open to our kids so they feel they can open up and talk to us no matter what.

This. Parents of black and brown children have the added stress of having to be alert to racism, within their children's education.

This Parents of black and brown children have the added stress of having to be alert to racism, within their children's education

Yes, as a white mum of two mixed race DC i was not prepared for this. It's not just their education but in all areas, after school activities, holiday activities, one of my DC attends a predominantly white programme and its something that gets discussed regularly. It's exhausting, heart breaking and crappy.

@Quirkyme that's satrire. Officers can no longer stop search on smell alone, and haven't been able to for a while..

Random Basics I was not blaming the victim so do not put words that I did not say. I was having a go at the teachers and the police, I would have refused that is all I am saying. It is shocking what that young girl went through and I saw that there was a protest march about it. Just shocking to think it is ok to strip search a young girl.