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

Are you going to answer this Felix

So when you are saying something that goes directly against the statement the GMP has put out is that because you believe them to have corrupt officers and management and that's why you need to correct the statement?

Catchasingmewithspiders
All they way through this you have been saying its happened in a cell - now you're saying she was moved out of custody?

Where is she getting moved to?

And which people have access to this area?

So if a detainee in the next cell either witnessed it or heard it - do they need to speak up - or are you happy for them to just stay silent. I'm not blaming them for the rape - i am suggesting that they are a direct witness to it.

Catchasingmewithspiders · Today 19:26
Are you going to answer this Felix

I have - what part of the statement are you in conflict with

All they way through this you have been saying its happened in a cell - now you're saying she was moved out of custody?

Nope your wrong I have said other things too

And I thought given how often you like to come up with alternative scenarios I would be allowed to throw in one of my own. But unsurprisingly no, you don't like that.

I'm not blaming them for the rape

But you are making them accountable

For a crime they didn't commit

You are passing the blame to them

I haven't seen your response

I saw you ask "what part of the statement" and I said "all of it" but then nothing after that I can attribute as a response to the question

I haven't said I am in conflict with the statement what on earth are you in about? I have asked why you have contradicted the statement the the Police have put out

Thank you. And no, funnily (or stupidly) enough I believed the officers I spoke to. I very strongly wanted to make a complaint afterwards but it was not in the best interests of my family member who wanted to forget the whole ordeal.

@AnSolas I'm a woman who has never had a wife, either beaten or unbeaten. No one else in my family has ever been in any trouble (hence trusting police!). Family member was in a single cell, would not have known anyone there even if he wasn't as despite his MH issues and causing criminal damage, he is not a career criminal and believe it or not was admonished as first offence but had to speak to his employer and get 2 written references to be allowed to continue with the company afterwards. He did however start kicking the cell door and shouting. No one came although I guess they are used to that at times, only have his word for it but I know who I believe. He was embarrassed about how badly he acted. Also no, I was not allowed a free pass to interview other detainees although I shall keep in mind that I'm allowed to go in and randomly question people in custody.

I know I should have aimed that at whatshisface but he actually disgusts me. I'm guessing he was one of the officers I spoke to!

@anon1888 Good on you for looking out for a family member who is in no position to care for himself.
I can totally understand your anger and fustration over the failure to provide for his ongoing medical need🌻

Catchasingmewithspiders
What part of the statement am I contradicting?

Terry Woods is the Deputy Chief Constable of GMP
The previous statement was released the previous Wednesday
The IOPC will be assessing the incident
The force will engage with Dame Vera Baird's review
The force are aware of the incident
They have been unable to produce 2x1 hour footage of CCTV

Are you saying all of the footage was not burnt onto discs?
Are you saying that one of the discs wasn't corrupted?
Are you saying that 2x1 hours sections were not missing?
The parent footage has been overwritten or not?
This was due to the standard retention time being passed?
They haven't recovered or secured the servers?
They have an active line of enquiry?
The footage can be recovered y digital forensic examiners?

I assume the part you maybe in disagreement with is that "...the parent footage has been overwritten due to the standard retention time being passed..."

Was it marked as evidential and if it was, why was it not saved and allowed to overwrite itself?

Was this deliberately done or has a technical issue caused this 2x1 hour sections of footage from the parent footage to be overwritten?

Is it one camera that's at fault?

Presumably you are not in conflict with the rest of the footage in and around custody during the time in custody. And if it was a 40 hours length of time in custody and say there was 20 cameras in and around custody, she would have got 800 hours worth of footage (minus the 2 missing hours).

So this would document her in custody apart from the missing 2 hours in the cell - but you are now suggesting she has been taken to another room where the attack occurred.

If this was so, how has the cop gotten Zayna from the cell and taken her to another room without anyone questioning them? You will need to get the keys from the custody sergeant who will ask "Why are you going into the cell?" Unless of course you are suggesting the custody sergeant and the DO's are part of the cover up. If Zayna has watched the footage, why was it not mentioned that she was taken to another room in custody. The cameras along the corridor would have picked this up, or at the custody desk or in the other room itself. What 'other room' are you referring to in any case?

I am not making the other detainees accountable for the rape.

I am saying that if a cop is going to commit a rape - a cell is not a very private place for it to happen.

Other cops (including custody sergeants & custody inspectors) may have been there too - in and around custody at the time. If they witnessed the rape occurring in the cell, I am guessing they are not accountable either for not saying anything.

Anon1888
I asked - "Did you speak to the other detainees on that wing"
A yes or no - sometimes people do, sometimes they don't. Sometimes their family member's know other people in there and vice-versa. In this case the answer was no. That's fine - that's all I was asking. I'm not sure why that question disgusted you?

The three officers you spoke with - were they just 3 random police officers or were they specifically tasked with looking after him. Were they custody detention officers? Were they assuming he had been given his medication to put your mind at rest? And how do you know he wasn't given any of his medication?

If he wasn't - it's wrong and you shouldn't have been lied to or assumed he had been given it.

They should have said "no idea" - or did they check the custody record and it was documented on there?

I cannot believe that @Felix125 is anything other than a fan boy who failed to get in. Surely, surely there can’t be someone so wilfully blind as he actually serving in the police and publicly nailing that ignorance to the mast?

At this stage he is arguing why it was a "good idea" for the police to have overwritten the footage and why everybody but the prisoners and the cat have an alibi.

Given that the police themselves made a statement insistance that the police had done so to mislead the public while not being a party to why the statement was issued is unprofessional.

DPA training 🤷🍿🍿🍿

But there have been serious miscarraige of justice where individuals engaged in wilfull blindness insisting on molding the facts to a predetermined outcome.

Are you saying all of the footage was not burnt onto discs?
Are you saying that one of the discs wasn't corrupted?
Are you saying that 2x1 hours sections were not missing?

I haven't said this

I assume the part you maybe in disagreement with is that

I haven't said this

Presumably you are not in conflict with the rest of the footage in and around custody during the time in custody

I haven't said I'm in conflict

I am not making the other detainees accountable for the rape.

I never said this.

You said this

How about the other detainees in custody - such as people in the next cells - are they accountable for the cover up too?

Anyway @Felix125 it's been fun but you are into the DARVO mode you always go into now and it's reminding me a little too much of an abusive relationship.

You are currently denying you said things and saying that I said them.

If you are an officer you are a horrendously bad one. You say the force you are in isn't bad and yet the way you present yourself you are the essence of a bad officer and they apparently haven't sacked you....

Anyway I know you like the last word so you can have it, because why deny you the opportunity to come in and say one more supercilious, truth twisting bit of passive aggressiveness. Go for it, I won't be replying any further.

Catchasingmewithspiders
It was you that said you disagreed with all of the statement.

I asked "what part of the statement are you referring to"
and you replied " all of it"

Hence - you don't believe that Terry Woods is the Deputy Chief Constable of GMP for example?

I am not saying that the other detainees are accountable for the rape - I have asked are they accountable for part of the cover up, if they are not speaking up having witnessed the rape take place. Or are you happy for them not to do so. You may have 3-4 key witnesses that saw or heard the rape take place but decide to back up the rogue cop instead. Are you happy with this?

Are the other people in custody accountable for the cover up too - custody sergeants, police officers, DO's, solicitors etc if they witnessed the rape? Are they OK to say nothing

And how am I an horrendously bad cop by considering alternatives?

I have said if it is a rape that occurred in the cell, then the cop needs to be jailed and the management team sacked and jailed.

But you continue to live in your world where we take things at face value all the time.

Software errors never occur with technology so should never be considered if something goes wrong.

AnSolas
Where have i said it was a good idea for them to overwrite the data?
I have said that it maybe a technical issue - that's all.

And what alibi have i given to people?
And you were the one who brought up the station cat - for some reason?
What station cat?

Where are you surmising that the police have released a statement to deliberately mislead the public?

Hibiscrubbed
I'm not blind - I am just considering all the alternatives.

Or would you prefer a police force which just considers the obvious one only.

Challenge nothing, believe everything your are told, accept everything - that sounds a good way to go!

And I have repeatedly said that if it is a cover up by the senior management team, then they should all be sacked and jailed.

Give it up, you are attempting a rather sad version of DARVO malicious compliance.
A poor reflection of the standard of professionalism which one should expect from any active member of a UK police force

But if you keep post I will keep replying point out how unprofessional it is

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas
How am I reversing the victim & offender here?

I have said if there is a rogue cop who has raped/sexually assaulted her in the cell - they need to be sacked & jailed. If the management team have covered this up, they need to be sacked and jailed.

I have asked the question - could this be a technical issue with regards the footage? Even though it has been overwritten - was it marked as evidiential for that camera, but the software has failed to do this. Is the camera faulty. According to Catchasingmewithspiders, software malfunctions never happen - but I have my doubts.

Could this rape/sexual assault occurred prior to her coming into custody? Can this be 100% discounted?

But if you want a police force to adopt - Challenge nothing, believe everything your are told, accept anything that seems to fit - that sounds a good way to go!

Give it up, you are attempting a rather sad version of DARVO malicious compliance.
A poor reflection of the standard of professionalism which one should expect from any active member of a UK police force

But if you keep post I will keep replying point out how unprofessional it is

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas
So you first need to explain how am I reversing the victim & offender?

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas

I take it the question is too difficult for you to answer.
1 - yes
2 - no

".....You may not type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options may not type anything...."

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

AnSolas
I take it that the question was too difficult to answer.

Or no other possible alternatives could exist?

The SAR was made during 31 days

The GMP broke GDPR by taking at least 9 months to send some data

They still haven't officially told Ms Iman that the data is corrupt but they announced it to the media 6 months later

So here we are months later and they have still never bothered to go back to her and tell her what the issue is. The contempt they have shown her is horrific

What I read is, police have attended this woman’s address because someone has reported concerns for her welfare. Whilst police were there she has assaulted an officer, so was arrested. She was brought to custody- there can be delays when booking someone into custody due to other people being in front of them in the Q. They would’ve stripped her clothes due to safety concerns of her potentially harming herself with the clothes she had on. Leaving her face down on a mat is a common cell insertion tactic when someone is being violent. They then left her custody clothes on top of her. From the article, it seems she was on a drugs bender and therefore does not clearly remember what happened. However, there is nothing to say her injuries which are consistent with sexual assault injuries did not happen PRIOR to her arrival in custody, as well as the date rape drug found in her system which would add up to her not remembering much coming into custody. The evidence from the article suggests she was drugged before police attended. In custody there are many many cameras and staff. For an officer to manage to rape her, around all the cameras and other staff would be almost impossible unless 10+ cops are willing to turn a blind eye to a woman being raped or sexually assaulted. I know there are the odd bad apples, however we’ve seen in the last few days that a nurse killed multiple babies, does that mean you wouldn’t trust a single nurse? Most officers are there for good reasons and want to make the public safe. They are normal people who want to protect those victims of rape. The missing footage is the only thing that cannot be explained, which I would question.

Audit fail

It started out as a check for training gaps and ended in a trust check.

With a professional training gap one can to establish a base level of pre-existing knowlege.

So ask a question that the trainee knows or should know the answer to

The reply will either be
1.1 a correct answer/appropiate response giving proof of pior training
1.2 an incorrect answer proves a training gap.

Option 1.2 comes with attitude test

Reason for that is the problem is either the training or the trainee
A trainee may be unable to be trained for a specific role or be able but unwilling to be trained to carry out the role
So one needs to assess if the trainee can be trusted within the role

On the trainee side a false answers indicate training can provide a solution
However false misleading answers indicate a possible choice, blatant false misleading answers indicate active choice

Re-asking the same questions in a slightly different way gives the trainee an opening to reconsider their choices
An escalation indicates that one has a serious problem as one can not trust the trainee in the role

By the escalation stage the trainee knows it is known that the trainee is lying but the next choice is to expand the lie
Parents and others dealing with children teach them not to lie as a personal ethos value so a trainee should know that a personal choice to lie shows a low or no ethical value

In a professional role the authority is delegated and the trainee has to be trustworthy to act within the constraints of a role but the trainer now has proof that this is not the case
The trainer should recomend that as the trainee is not trustworthy they should never be given any delegated authority and removed from the organisation

Unless you are working out of the station in question (or are frequently detained inntheie cells) you can only guess at the what happen. While the risk of a sexual assault happening is low it can not be ruled out because the police force have overwritten the visual proof.

The missing footage can be explained

It is either poor DP policy or the DP officer failed to implement the DP policy.

There is the missing footage yes

And then there is the fact it took an entire year to get the footage they did get to her to her

Massively breaking individual rights request rules

And whilst I have said previously I am willing to believe it could just be poor data processes the fact remains that "they couldn't have raped her because CCTV" keeps getting trotted out as if that's proof it didn't happen when the CCTV is missing