Woman stripped and left topless in a cell!

[Dovetail40]

This is disturbing to read. I hope a proper investigation is carried and the missing time videos are found so she knows exactly what happened to her.

Sky news Greater Manchester Police

The police need to be held accountable for their actions. I don’t think people can trust some police officers / regions any more, sadly.

Eh? Of course it’s news!

I’m glad she knows she has support here.

If he wants us to do anything, write to anyone, tweet etc, do let us know please.

Wtf are you on about? Are you even BAME? Because it’s clear your only concern is the police and white women.

It’s appalling, sometimes feel like women are under siege. The police are an utter state, she’s right, she shouldn’t have to deal with the added strain of having degrading images released to get justice. I feel for her.

I work in IT, where there is a difference between data and information.

Data is just a collection of symbols. Information is what it tells us that we didn't know before.

So "It's hot in the Sahara" is data. But it tells us nothing new about the Sahara so it's low on information.

Buy the same token, seeing data that states "All cops are corrupt thugs" can't be considered news, as it tells us nothing we didn't know before.

Mic drop.

Much like judging people and institutions for what they do, not what they say, I find my attitude doesn't win any friends.

Absolutely awful story. Poor woman. How can people do this. I've only had 2 experiences with the police. 1st was when I was a single mum with a baby home just me and my baby and someone smashed my window. I rang the police and slthey advised me to go outside and find what had been used to smash the window. I actually did as well. They never came out and just gave me a crime reference number. I understand they are understaffed and I should not have left my house. Second time 2 plain clothed officers knocked on my door and basically demanded to come in then told me a man I knew years previously (not an ex, just a random guy who worked near my office and added me on fb) had been accused of sexual abuse and they wanted to know if he hurt me, what I thought of him etc. But the male officer made me feel stupid as I said I thought he was normal and he was always nice and polite. He was basically saying how could I think that and am I generally bad at reading people and he just was obviously annoyed that I didn't think the guy was a monster. Basically I ended up signing a written statement in my kitchen which was heavily influenced by this male officer just to get them to leave.

Again, I was home alone with a young child at that time aswell.

Just a reminder for anyone who trusts the police ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66339051

I agree - and it's not just this kind of issue. I'm outing myself as a bloke on this, though I don't exactly hide this in on my other posts. It's not that I dislike Surrey Police personally. But in a way, I am a trouble maker. I had a run in with Surrey Council over my mother's treatment in a care home - seems they kill them off to cut costs fyi - and once you've taken stuff like that to the press, it seems you go 'on their list' somewhere and you do pick up on it. The police won't shop their mates at the Council, it's a simple as that.

I reported the issue to the police over the phone and it got a bit funny, the woman paraphrased how I 'got in an argument with the care home' and I said, hang on, I never said that and she seemed flustered. I figured she was reading it out from a pre-arranged statement. It all felt a bit sly. Then you have histories such as the wrong jailing of the Guildford Four - nobody accountable - and even the two parter on The Railways Killers (Surrey) has you doubting the safe conviction of the second of them.

It's sad, it seems the only police you can trust are on shows on Talking Pictures TV. Their job seems to be to carry out surveillance on us and doing a bit of light crime solving on the side as and when it suits them, to keep up appearances.

SerendipityJane
Just a reminder for anyone who trusts the police ...

And where is your evidence that its the police who have done this?

NewspaperTaxis
Their job seems to be to carry out surveillance on us and doing a bit of light crime solving on the side as and when it suits them, to keep up appearances.

I have to disagree. We respond to jobs as they come in.
If there is the evidence there, we will pursuit it through the courts via CPS - if not we can't.
Add into this things like missing from homes, sudden deaths, RTCs and all the safeguarding issues - and you quickly run out of resources

Its a huge topic, but its not something you can brush off with "light crime solving on the side as and when it suits them".

Are you suggesting that the police were wrong to pursue him?
He was involved with £135m of cocaine & heroin been brought into the country and dealt to vulnerable people on the street.

He had a 'small removal company' - yet drove Ferrari's, had holidays in Dubai and Rolex watches - and you think people were not a bit suspicious?

Do you think it might be other people who have tipped off the press/social media maybe. Do you think the neighbours might have been a bit suspicious when the drugs unit turned up to search their home and his face appeared in the local paper when he was charged?

The newpsper report is about how his mother was named in the media and was draged into the media spotlight.

She suspected that it was an individual who gossiped about their job.

Rather than run a distraction on the crime of a third party focus on the allegation.

What was it ?
That an individual member of the police decides to connect a person they arrested to a family member not involved in the crime by speaking to a reporter

Is it is possible that this happened?

yes or no?

the official response could include that any member of the force discovered engaging in such conduct will always be subject to discipline.

Then it is up to the newspapers to make a choice to publish or not.

Well, you don't seem to contradict me. You say it's down to resources that you can't respond to everything, okay... same difference.

It's the deception that got me. Had my bike nicked from outside the station, someone saw it stolen and they took it on the train. I phoned it in on 101 to vent, expecting nothing. I was pleasantly surprised! The guy on the line wanted the make of the bike, the colour, a witness statement from the person who saw it nicked, and their details, the time the train left the station and the destination on the front - all like they were going to arrange a SWAT team to descend on it somewhere between Leatherhead and Dorking! Finally, he pointed out that the station was covered by CCTV so it would have been captured!

Being paranoid, I did slightly notice a change in tone when I gave my name but then I am the guy who phoned in that Surrey care homes kill off the elderly via dehydration and the police don't shop their mates at the Council....

Anyway, the result was nothing. They said they'd forward it to the Transport Police or something, got a letter saying I"d phoned it in too late for them to act on the CCTV footage - er, I'd called it in 5 mins after the theft - so that was that.

It was the same with the guy who owns the local bike shop, he knew who'd nicked the bikes and got them back, just local kids, but the police didn't bother to have a warning chat with them.

I expected nothing and was still disappointed. But this is the story across the UK your read this stuff all the time, where folk have to 'turn detective' to get a result on a case.

NewspaperTaxis

I agree - we are underfunded and under resourced completely.

Arrested a guy on our last night shift for assault on his partner. A soon as we get into custody, he claims to have taken a load of zopiclones before his arrest. Straight to hospital we go. There we are joined with another 8 cops with similar prisoners. They all now make this claim as a stay in hospital is better than being in a custody cell.

They refuse to have their bloods taken, so the hospital have to observe them for 6-12 hours. So that's us written off for the shift on prisoner guard. Any other jobs come is -we can't respond.

And is like that every shift with safeguarding. Each shift is quickly wiped out.

If we had people available, we could have ran out and caught your thief before he got on the train. Quick and easy job, straight arrest and a statement off yourself with the CCTV - simple.

AnSolas

So how do you/they know its a police officer or police staff that have leaked the information?

Is it not possible that its some disgruntled neighbour, or disgruntled associate of the guy who wants to smear the family name. Or some disgruntled person who doesn't like Sue Arnold and has jumped on this to make her look bad - her son being arrested for being a drug dealer.

Stop thinking attack is the best defence and offering up other suspects.

It makes one look guilty.

How about
Yes it could have been a officer.
Any officer who would act in that way is casuing me harm to and should not be a police officer as they only make my job harder. I hope it was just some disgruntled neighbour, or disgruntled associate of the guy who wants to smear the family name. Or some disgruntled person who doesn't like Sue Arnold and has jumped on this to make her look bad - her son being arrested for being a drug dealer.

See the difference?
it is not casting blame just you accepting an option you making it clear you are a fellow officer who would not support crappy officers using the media to gossip or to attack her personally.

You dont need to add the last bit unless you think I am too stupid to notice the rather big elephant.

AnSolas

I'm just curious to know straight away why people/Sue Arnold think "it must be a police officer who had done this" when the information is public knowledge. he was charged & prosecuted in a court of law which is open to the public.

Yes I agree - it could have been a police officer and if so they should be sacked and/or jailed because it does make my job harder.

But it could have been the refuse collector, a nurse, a doctor, the window cleaner, the retired neighbour, a passing dog walker etc etc

Prove that it was not a police officer.

AnSolas
Prove that it was not a police officer.

That's not the way it works. If you are going to accuse someone of a specific unlawful act - you need to be able to prove it. Its not up to them to prove it hasn't happened. Its up to person to prove the act, not the accused individual to prove the disparity to it.

Its like me saying "you have to prove it wasn't you who has done it"

This.

The missing footage is damning. Even their own ex-Chief Superintendent believes this woman was raped and the force are covering it up. What other facts do you need?

The comment was in answer to AnSolas - and the leaked information about Sue Arnold.

If you are going to accuse someone of a specific unlawful act - you need to be able to prove it. Its not up to them to prove it hasn't happened. Its up to person to prove the act, not the accused individual to prove the disparity to it.

So back to the original case this post is about then

She isn't being given the withheld footage to prove her claims of sexual assault so who's wrong? And can't you agree it's suspicious?
Also, this accusation could very easily be cleared up if the footage was just given to her. Even now 29 months later. But instead no one can say one way or another and it's not because she's doing anything wrong. What do the police have to hide if nothing happened

Because if its part of an investigation - the footage will not be supplied to her.
Its not suspicious - its just part of that investigation process.

Perhaps it does show a crime being committed against her - perhaps not. Perhaps a part of the footage contradicts or supports her account on a specific matter - perhaps not. But if its part of an enquiry, it can't be disclosed yet.

For example - say a fight in pub takes place and a number of people want to make a complaint that they were assaulted by someone else. That footage won't be disclosed to them - because the people involved (suspects/witnesses/complainants) may structure their account/statement to match the footage.

We can't review our BWV footage in order to write our statements for the same principle.