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

Would explain a lot frankly. They want us to believe it’s a few bad apples, whilst minimising and excusing this disgusting behaviour. It only proves they’re just as rotten, anyone minimising this is part of the problem.

There's nothing about 'the head' of the GMP saying anything of the sort? The only person from GMP named and quoted in the article is the deputy chief constable who just said it's being investigated. And he isn't the "head" anyway.

If you mean Martyn Harding he was never the head, chief superintendent is several ranks down and there would have been multiple people in that role in a force as big as GMP. Plus he is a FORMER officer, and, significantly, seems to have left after suing the force for discrimination so is perhaps not the most impartial (although, again, he could very well have been justified for doing so).

I completely believe the woman by the way but you can't accuse someone else of not reading the story when you don't seem to have done so yourself!

Both witnesses were heroin users with previous charges of dishonest conduct. The witnesses only came forward the day they were arrested for something else. The police concealed all of that

Alongside the above, the police lost the woman's clothing and didn't release photos which showed the woman had scratched her assailant and the suspect had no such scratches.

There's a reason why Greater Manchester Police are desperately throwing out apologies for their actions.

Again, see above. THIS is why the police can rape, beat and murder people because their colleagues are so blinkered they will ignore ALL evidence that they have in their faces. Officers who behave this way directly cause the rapes, beatings, miscarriages of justice and murders of innocent people by police officers. Your comments here and on that other thread just emphasise the above. Your words are highlighting the exact behaviour I'm talking about. You're either so blinded that you have zero sense of self awareness, or you just don't care. I'm not sure which it is but I'm not sure it matters.

We have had in the past people who have died in police cells before by stuffing items such as toilet paper, clothing, socks, underwear down their throat - so if there is a risk there, that's why they have been removed.

They gave her a belt after they removed these items.

@Eupemiaroses I am so enjoying reading your insightful comments - truly - I believe in all that you are saying and you've explained it so it is easy to understand. Thank you

Eupemiaroses
So the next time someone comes forward with eye witness evidence concerning a rape offence. If they have a criminal history, I should just ignore them?

Let the victim/survivor know that "someone did come forward with evidence - but we just ignored them because they have a criminal history"

CPS are fully aware of the criminal histories of witnesses before any trial in an case.

anon1888
Is it a belt that is affixed to the boiler suite perhaps?
It must have been a 'risk assessed' item.

I think when you say strip search there’s an assumption of looking for an item which isn’t necessarily the case if you are removing clothing for safety reasons I.e you believe the person may attempt to use it as ligature or to restrict their airway. There’s also a lot of inaccurate reporting as to what is a ‘strip search’ which can be as little as removing shoes versus an intimate search which is something else. I don’t think it’s always purposeful though. The terms are similar and broad. The legislation as I’ve said elsewhere is 40 years old and badly outdated.

Legally removing clothes has to be carried out by same sex. Any strip search. It’s governed by police and criminal evidence codes. I don’t think I’m being biased or I’m trying not to be anyway. We all are to some degree influenced by our experiences and therefore biased.

I don’t want to become overly focused on the legality of searching/clothing removal as it’s just one issue here. Like I’ve said elsewhere I think there is public engagement needed on strip search/removal of clothing/intimate searching to ensure we are getting it right and the law is in the right place on it. The police are crap at this. Some interest from the government in updating the legislation would be nice. It’s not individual force policy it would need to be home office led and law changes.

Legally removing clothes has to be carried out by same sex

Since when?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10703327/Women-strip-searched-trans-officers-born-male-say-police.html

I think there’s a difference though in me talking about policies and procedures and what should happen and defending someone breaking them. I’m not going to defend breaking the law by anyone, certainly not a police officer who is there to look after a vulnerable person. That includes people who are under arrest no matter what they are there for.

If you’ve taken someone’s clothes off because the custody sgt has decided they are of an extreme risk to themselves and then left them with a belt I wouldn’t defend that. Why on earth would anyone. You’ve subjected someone to something really undignified and horrible and then left them in danger anyway. But I’m not in possession of all of the facts and I never will be. It’s for the IOPC to investigate if they decide to retain it now and hopefully give her some answers. If criminality or misconduct is found it will be dealt with. Officers subject to misconduct proceedings now have to have their hearings in public so if it goes to that then there will be some information in the public albeit they will try to retain the complainants privacy so there won’t be any release of cctv.

I saw that. It’s an utter piece of nonsense from the NPCC I think they have rescinded it. The LAW says you have to be strip searched by someone of your own sex. You can’t issue guidance that replaces the law

I would like to believe that but I can’t find anything that confirms this will never happen and obviously, I don’t trust the police to follow the law.

Anyone who is strip searched by an officer who is not the same sex as them has every right to sue the pants off us and I hope they do if that’s going on. Payouts don’t do much to repair broken trust though. I absolutely despaired when I saw that ‘guidance’. So tone deaf. I think the baroness Casey report for me really felt like someone was finally talking about some of the institutional misogyny in the way we operate. That’s something I see more so than ‘the cultural issues’ in the met in my force. I haven’t seen inappropriate touching/language stuff tolerated where I work (that’s my own experience I can’t and don’t presume to speak for others) but on an organisational level I strongly agree women’s and childrens right to justice hasn’t ever been a real priority. Lots of lip service but no money or resources. That guidance on searching was a big fat example of a lack of thought about the needs of women let alone what is actually legal.

Stop repeating this piffle.

I don't want to join a misogynistic sexist uniformed organisation. Especially since I've ready been in o e and it was hard bloody work.

Yes, if her bank account status had been shared with the media, this would be the top BBC story for days with Tory MPs lining up to condemn.

@KarmaStar I can only assume you're very drunk.

I’ve watched the video now rather than reading the article. The reporting on legislation about strip searching, intimate searching and removal of clothing is completely inaccurate, these are three different procedures with different rules. If they wanted to make a general point about whether clothes should ever be removed in any circumstances (reasonable debate to have) then they should have done so. Not manipulated the report to insinuate rules were broken if they weren’t. She isn’t cuffed or left with a belt. Those clothes are made of paper you can’t do any harm with them. There’s some clear concerns about how she was treated in custody that are being investigated and rightly so. Any inaccuracy in the custody log vs the cctv is a big concern. So is any record she is unfit for detention. However taking an hour and a half to get someone into custody through the wiring in the hole and past the desk on a Friday/ Saturday night is not unusual. I’m not saying that is what happened I have no idea. But they seem to be giving half a story. I don’t think it’s very responsible reporting because the custody record that they are clearly in possession of would say what time she arrived versus what time booked in. The delay can be an hour sometimes. Why is that being left out. Why haven’t they covered the basic legislation they are talking about. To be clear I’m not blaming her she’s got a right to air her concerns publicly. I think the journalism is crap.

@Felix125 are you a policeman? Or a solicitor?

What on earth are you going on about?

Wher is this story on yhr BBC site?! I’m searching but all I can find are articles about Prince Harry and other celebrities 😡

The BBC don’t think it’s newsworthy it seems.

What have I said that is piffle? I am just stating facts.

You are saying that you don't want to join the police, which agrees with exactly what I have said.

If what I am saying is piffle then what you must be saying is piffle too as you have agreed with what I have said.

People like you just expect other people to do the jobs that you don't want to do and expect them to put up with being spat on and stabbed. And you expect these people to be decent people. Well, it isn't going to happen as long as our society is full of scum.

Huh. Maybe women in custody are sexually attacked by on duty police officers so very frequently that it’s no longer ‘news’

I guess I’ll do what the BBC want: go back to reading about celebrities and not worry my little head about it 😡

BBC aren't impartial

Keep everyone dumb

First.
Thanks for the reply.

For me the issue is that the "Officer in charge of PR" should not be stating it was not a "strip search" but a "welfare check strip search" when speaking about a specific instance which has a video. They could take PR tips from that Polk County Sheriff in the US with blunt facts.
The stripping is the primary action which will concern the general public.

Legally removing clothes has to be carried out by same sex. Any strip search. It’s governed by police and criminal evidence codes.

If senior management are claiming that it was not a strip search the next step is to claim that the law around strip search do not apply to welfare checks. One of UK police forces PR statements has already floated that excuse to why the officers failed to record any search.

Similar to the force who decided the law does not apply if they change the classification and call a male officer a female officer.