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

Fucking hell

Bump

I do not work out of that station and lucky for me am not frequently detained in the cells!
however I do know very well the custody and detainee process which is why I feel I can explain confidently why they did certain things, ie removed her clothes, left her face down etc. I feel very sorry for this woman who was it seems sexually assaulted by somebody. It must be very scary not remembering what happened to you.
i just wanted to remind people of another potential way the sexual assault could’ve happened, a very plausible way.
it’s very easy to believe everything the media writes, and they’re experts in writing things in a way to get a certain reaction. It’s how they pay their wages

Not at all saying it couldn’t have happened due to CCTV, but if it did happen in custody others would have almost definitely seen or known, and I’m saying it’s unlikely they themselves would not have reported it or acted.
cannot defend the police’s delayed reaction to the lady’s request for the CCTV, it certainly hasn’t helped them or the publics perception

There has already been someone on the thread telling us multiple times she must have been raped before getting to the station

A rape that somehow resulted in spontaneous bleeding 24 hours after being admitted to custody

She continued to bleed and there was significant amounts of blood over the cell for hours after that, yet at no point did the police get her medical attention

At no point have the police opened an investigation into this supposed other person

Whatever happened the police have fucked up here in multiple ways

And given the ex police commissioner thinks its possible she was raped by an officer after having reviewed all the evidence it remains a possibility as far as I am concerned

Can you imagine if the ex commissioner came out and said he felt the police weren’t responsible? They’d be torn down for covering for the police, be thrown abuse at by the public. They are probably using it as an opportunity to get some publicity. Maybe they’re right, if they have all the facts which none of us on this thread have, then I put my faith in him and believe him.

But the same as I can’t say the officer didnt do it, no one here can say an officer did do it.

@Crystal746599 we have to also assume it's possible she was sexually assaulted in the van before arriving at the station. You see a police officer on cctv climbing into the side of the van while she is in there. But this is not recorded and the bwc videos are missing
So you don't have to explain why it couldn't happen in the cells as there's much more to this than just missing custody footage

It is not normal to wear BWV on constantly throughout interactions with people. It is the usual to turn it on when at an incident then turn it off, otherwise the battery would die after a few jobs. You’d only usually turn it back on if something significant was happening, ie she was kicking off. Vans don’t tend to hand working cameras in them. A police officer would usually sit in the back of a van (but not inside the cell part) to watch a detainee on their way to custody to check they don’t try and harm themselves, as if someone managed to hurt themselves whilst in your care, essentially you are liable. So it is standard procedure to have someone sat in the back watching, especially if she was on drugs.

It's also not normal to take an hour and a half to do a ten minute journey, especially at 2am when its hardly rush hour

There can be many reasons why there’s a delay, they could’ve gone to one custody and it was full, so would’ve had to drive to another one. They could’ve had to pull over to see to her if she kept becoming unconscious. They could’ve got to custody and there were multiple other detainees waiting to be booked in. If there was an officer sat in the back, that means there would’ve been at least 2 officers present as one would’ve been driving, which makes it less likely someone would’ve had the opportunity to harm her without someone knowing.
i know it might seem I’m being argumentative and defending the police blindly- which is not the case. I just think the public should know explanations of all the possible inconsistencies before making their judgement. If something happened like this in a hospital, I don’t know the reason for delays the the hospitals procedures on how they’re trained to do things, so couldn’t make a proper judgement on a situation without knowing this information.

And with all of those possible reasons why couldn't they have explained it to her?

Instead they took a year to fully respond to her request and couldn't even be bothered to tell her directly the disks were corrupted they let her find out via the media

I think a lot of people wouldn't be half as suspicious if they had just been transparent in their dealings

But I deeply lack faith in any of this due directly to the polices actions and responses

Maybe she wasn't raped by the police but there were still many failings in their dealings with her. For example the log said she wasn't fit to be detained and yet she was kept there without medical attention for 40 hours.

Whether or not the rape happened at the station, the behaviour around this incident and the complete lack of ownership by the police involved to even admit they have handled in badly is appalling and reduced the publics trust in the police

And honestly the officers coming on MN trying to defend the actions in this case, again acting like there was nothing untoward doesn't help. It just builds a picture of a culture where no one is willing to learn a lesson or admit failings.

I totally agree with all paragraphs bar the last one. It’s been handled terribly. I am not surprised in any way at the public’s response, and hers. It is no surprise the public feel the way they do about the police.

I have only defended actions which I can explain and understand the reason behind. Maybe there wasn’t any reason for the delay, for stripping her clothes, for not having their BWV on. But maybe there was and that’s what I’m trying to explain. However if people want to blindly believe everything they read in the media that is up to them.

However if people want to blindly believe everything they read in the media that is up to them

If you have read this entire thread and still believe that those intelligent, articulate posters are "blindly" believing the media then you haven't really been paying attention properly

And if you have read the entire thread you will also have seen that the actions you have been defended have already been defended at length. That defence however doesn't answer some fairly gaping holes in the story

And in the choice between believing the words of Ms Iman herself (not the media) and believing the police who are wholly untransparent about the whole ordeal, even if we did all choose to blindly believe Ms Iman that's no more uninformed than blindly trusting the police.

I actually didn’t read any of the other posts on this thread. So the fact others have said similar to what I have surely gives it some credibility.
and we are believing Ms Iman saying she has been sexually assaulted, absolutely I believe her. However she can’t remember what happened or how it happened or who did it. So there’s nothing to believe in that part.

Ah so you decided we were blindly believing everything we read in the media without actually doing the courtesy of reading what the various different people have said?

That's somewhat hypocritical - you are blindly believing what you think we think without even bothering to find out

And given the other supposed police officer on here is stating "facts" without even having read any of the detail around the case, not even the police statement at one point no that doesn't give credibility to anything other than a propensity to jump to conclusions without all of the facts. Whilst saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions...

I never said people WERE blindly believing what is said in the media, I said if people WANT to believe blindly what is said in the media that is up to them. I never said that was anything to do with people on this thread, like I said I haven’t even read others opinions on this thread. I stated my option and you questioned it, so I have answered.

I read the article posted on here, and gave my opinion based off the article this thread was about it. I apologise my opinion is not the same as yours, as that has obviously bothered you.

I apologise my opinion is not the same as yours, as that has obviously bothered you.

You dont need to apologise you can post what you like and challenge what you like.

In the same way I can challenge you.

I am not however "obviously bothered" which sounds suspiciously like "emotional woman", I am just countering your post like you are mine.

I just managed to do so without implying your emotions were overly involved

Oh no, we’re not gonna argue about the ‘obviously bothered’ comment are we 🤣
truce.
we are obviously both opinionated ladies, good for us. I love a good debate, thank you for challenging me.
(not sarcastic)

Oh no, we’re not gonna argue about the ‘obviously bothered’ comment are we

Again I'm offering a comment. You are the one calling it an argument and implying an emotion that simply isn't there is my posts

But by all means if you want a "truce" as if this were some kind of fight then fine truce, whatever that means in this context

I’m being a bit light hearted, after discussing a very sad and upsetting topic. Soz

The 'soz' is ignorant and totally unnecessary when we're discussing such a sensitive topic that you can't even be arsed to read the facts before jumping on your keyboard
I'm beyond repeating things we've already spoken about and debated with posters who have zero empathy
There's no need to be lighthearted on this thread. It's a very very serious issue

Catchasingmewithspiders
I have never said that it has definitely happened prior to coming to the police station - I have said that its a possibility.

Similar to saying that its a possibility that it could have occurred in the cell - hence if it has people need saking and jailing over it.

The delay in the footage could in part be due to the amount that needed to be redacted before being sent out.

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

Or no other possible alternatives could exist?

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

You at least dont claim to be UK police so cant be held to a professional standard.

You need to google ethics the UK police do training on them.
The Code of Ethics is about self-awareness, ensuring that everyone in policing feels able to always do the right thing and is confident to challenge colleagues irrespective of their rank, role or position.

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

Exactly.

Other alternatives need to be examined first before you can reach a conclusion.