Met apologise for 'sexist, derogatory' language when searching woman

[ArabellaScott]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/met-apologises-to-academic-for-sexist-derogatory-language

'The Metropolitan police have apologised and paid compensation to an academic for “sexist, derogatory and unacceptable language” used by officers about her when she was strip-searched.'

'Duff was arrested on 5 May 2013 on suspicion of obstructing and assaulting police after trying to hand a legal advice card to a 15-year-old caught in a stop-and-search sweep in Hackney – allegations she was later cleared of in court. '

Is anyone going to do something about the police, at all?

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854816668218

“Contagious Accountability”: A Global Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police '

I've read accounts from members of the public where police officers have switched off their body cams when they approached people (more than one account on the Black Mumsnetters board), it should be investigated when a police officer manually switches off a recording device before dealing with a member of the public. If everyone is acting professionally and fairly then what reason is there to object to monitoring?

[quote ArabellaScott]www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/29/police-with-body-cameras-receive-93-fewer-complaints-study[/quote]
Could this be that officers are being better behaved when wearing a camera

Or

People who used to complain about police interactions they have had now think there is no point doing so as the encounter was recorded so their complaint wont go anywhere?

Its a big difference - 93%

@Isthatthebestyoucando

I've read accounts from members of the public where police officers have switched off their body cams when they approached people (more than one account on the Black Mumsnetters board), it should be investigated when a police officer manually switches off a recording device before dealing with a member of the public. If everyone is acting professionally and fairly then what reason is there to object to monitoring?

That is chilling. I agree.

@ArabellaScott

You are not listening, Felix. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do, here. I'm not anti police and I've been trying to keep an open mind but believe me, your insistence that she must have done something to deserve this appalling treatment is not helping to improve the reputation of the police.

Ok so:

Which point of the process do you not agree with? - bearing in mind i have said (a few times now) that the comments made and language used was not acceptable

Are you one who accepts that the arrest was lawful at that point in time?

Are you one who thinks that she should not have been strip searched in custody?

If so, can you answer my point of what was custody supposed to do if she refuses her details and present as an unknown risk?

Do they just assume that she is not concealing anything and take the chance that nothing will happen?

Or do they err on the side of caution?

Or, is there another option you can consider?

Bear in mind - I am not condoning the language and comments made. And if the search process which I detailed on the previous page was not followed, then I am not condoning that.

But its the process which seems to be in dispute here with quite a few posters.

People say i am not listening to them - but people seem not to be listening to me as i have asked these questions a few times now and not had any response to them.

@Isthatthebestyoucando

I've read accounts from members of the public where police officers have switched off their body cams when they approached people (more than one account on the Black Mumsnetters board), it should be investigated when a police officer manually switches off a recording device before dealing with a member of the public. If everyone is acting professionally and fairly then what reason is there to object to monitoring?

The ones we have now are on constant record for up to a minute either side of the interaction. Officers 'turn them on' to mark a specific section as evidential which then automatically drops onto a database when the camera is re-docked at the end of the shift. .

No I don’t think she should have been arrested or violently strip searched.

I think they did that because they felt that their authority was challenged and they wanted to prove a point. They didn’t think she was hiding a ceramic gun up her bum, they just didn’t want her thinking she could cheek them and get away with it

I think your colleagues enjoyed their power trip, in fact I know they do because I have lain there while they hold me down and joke about it.

I have seen police officer try and ride a horse over a woman on the ground, kettle and then tear gas young environmentalists.
I have seen them drive a young man’s face and hands into broken glass and then try and charge him for police assault to cover their tracks.
I have seen someone who later turned out to be a undercover cop hitting on 16 year old, yes more than one.

I could go on for hours

Apart from mark Kennedy none of them have faced charges for their crimes

Your defence of them tells me everything I already knew about the police.

It’s actually nice to see some of the shocked responses here, realising for the first time that the police aren’t to be trusted

@SomePosters

Can’t believe that copper is still defending the sexual assault her colleagues performed

And people wonder why no one trusts police anymore

I was brought up to trust the police but I learned the hard way that they’d rather kill protestors than stop murderers

The rot goes all the way felix and as long as you choose to put the uniform on you’re suspect

Using your spare time to defend your uniformed colleagues assaulting a woman on some bullshit power trip is disgraceful.

Are you going to defend the copper that raped my mum when she was an 11yo fleeing a violent home, or that pig that murdered Sarah and his top brass who said TO THE PRESS she shouldn’t have ‘allowed herself to be arrested’
How about the spy cops who were having sexual relations (and at least one baby) with teenagers?
West Yorkshire police covering for Saville?

The rot goes all the way and you choose it when you put your uniform on

The search itself will not be a sexual assault.

Unless a specific thing was done during that search which was a sexual assault. That's why if we can see an item plugged in an intimate body part - we can not just remove it. We can only get the subject to do so in a controlled manner (see my earlier post - previous page i think). If they refuse, then its a medical issue. For example, if a male has an item under his foreskin, we can not grab that part of the body to remove it.

Sexual assaults can be something like touching someones hair, or foot, or hand - so long as you can show that the intent was there to be a sexual contact.

Obviously intimate body parts will be sexual contact per-se, but say i had a hand fetish and was aroused by shaking someones hand. If i approached you in the street and shook your hand out of the blue and it can be shown that i did this for a sexual purpose and that was my intent - then the offence is complete.

But that doesn't mean to say that any type of hand shaking is automatically a sexual assault.

If the custody process was not followed in the strip search and she was touched in a sexual way by any person present then that would be a sexual assault. Or was this done as part of attempting to search her?

As I have said before, most strip searches are done compliantly and the person removes their own clothes and moves parts of their body to be examined.

But what if the person becomes non compliant?

You still have to check certain parts of the body?

If they refuse to do this, what should happen next?

Just accept that we can't search that part of the body and leave?

@SomePosters

No I don’t think she should have been arrested or violently strip searched.

I think they did that because they felt that their authority was challenged and they wanted to prove a point. They didn’t think she was hiding a ceramic gun up her bum, they just didn’t want her thinking she could cheek them and get away with it

I think your colleagues enjoyed their power trip, in fact I know they do because I have lain there while they hold me down and joke about it.

I have seen police officer try and ride a horse over a woman on the ground, kettle and then tear gas young environmentalists.
I have seen them drive a young man’s face and hands into broken glass and then try and charge him for police assault to cover their tracks.
I have seen someone who later turned out to be a undercover cop hitting on 16 year old, yes more than one.

I could go on for hours

Apart from mark Kennedy none of them have faced charges for their crimes

Your defence of them tells me everything I already knew about the police.

It’s actually nice to see some of the shocked responses here, realising for the first time that the police aren’t to be trusted

I am not saying she has had a gun up her bum - just as she was not ridden over with a horse

I am using that as example of what things can be smuggled into custody

So - ok, you didn't agree with the arrest. But an arrest was made and CPS believed that there was sufficient there to take it to court - otherwise it would have been NFA'd at source.

Moving on from that:

Can you answer what custody were supposed to do with a subject who is refusing their details to them?

They can do no back ground checks on them

They don't know if that her first time in custody or if she has been in custody loads of times at other police forces and has a history of concealing items.

What do you want custody to do - treat her as a low risk or unknown risk at that point?

Would it have been acceptable to just not search her and place her in a cell - only to discover later that she has a history of self harm and whilst in the cell she's taken a load of tablets she had secreted and died?

I am not saying that it was the case here - but we do not know who she is when she came into custody so they have to risk assess her.

Now please answer my above questions as to what custody are supposed to do here?

I am interested to know if there was another option custody could have done - bear in mind i am not condoning any of the comments made to her.

And please don't just say she should not have been arrested in the first place. The facts are she was arrested and now she is standing in custody.

'I think they did that because they felt that their authority was challenged and they wanted to prove a point. They didn’t think she was hiding a ceramic gun up her bum, they just didn’t want her thinking she could cheek them and get away with it

I think your colleagues enjoyed their power trip'

Yup.

In order to believe that the strip search was not a horrific assault you have to believe three things:-

1. The arrest was justified.
2. The strip search was justified.
3. The strip search was done appropriately.

1. I have my doubts about. She was acquitted. And I have evidence about the relationship the police officers at that station have with the truth.
2. I have even stronger doubts about. They said it was authorised because they were concerned that she was concealing something that she might use to go harm herself. The custody sergeant also said “treat her like a terrorist, I don’t care”. To me that doesn’t sound like a person focussed on their concerns about her.
3. Even stronger doubts. They demonstrated by their own words that they enjoyed ridiculing her. She also had a number of injuries and talked of them touching her intimately.

To me, I can’t imagine any reasonable person being able to say “yes, yes, yes” to all three of these questions.

Felix’s view is interesting. They are a self proclaimed respectful police officer who follows the law. But they are completely unable to look at a situation and admit that it is likely - not definite but likely - that a police officer or a number of police officers have committed some pretty horrific acts. Even though they have evidence that these police officers did some different but connected pretty horrific acts.

It shows why conviction rates of police officers who commit domestic abuse are even worse than the (embarrassingly low) conviction rates of domestic abuse by the general public. It shows why Wayne Couzens was able to carry on as a police officer even after some very red flags were shown about him. If (self proclaimed) “good cops” are of the view that if they didn’t see it then there is nothing to see as far as the malpractice of other officers goes then that really does explain exactly why so many violent officers are able to carry on doing whatever they like.

For this to come out a young woman has had to battle for a decade. Her strength is to be applauded. But what is sickening is not what happened to her but what must have happened to so many other people who were at the mercy of these officers who were not as strong, who were not as intelligent, who were not as brave, who were unable to fight. Their stories will never be told.

You have got to be fucking kidding....you cannot see how to risk assess this woman expect for an intimate search? Go on have a try.... Say a search is off limits for whatever reason, maybe COVID related, not enough staff that day - or you haven't got sufficient grounds for a search (something/anything).... Now how might you deal with this woman/situation/risk?

@Felix125 What they should have done is made a sensible risk assessment. What was it they called her - “a bleeding heart leftie” and “some sort of socialist”. They knew exactly what she was. She was an annoying left wing student who didn’t like the police (in her opinion) not following stop and search procedures. She had a nice laminated card about it.

Is someone like that, with nice laminated cards, really likely to have a razor blade up her bum and use it to slash her wrists or stab the police officer?

She had already asked for a solicitor. Her plans were pretty obvious to anyone with any sense - solicitor comes, solicitor gets her released, she smiles smugly as she goes and writes article for college magazine (circulation 425) about the awfulness of the police. All this “she might be a danger to herself or someone else” is ridiculous.

Are you one who accepts that the arrest was lawful at that point in time?

No.

Are you one who thinks that she should not have been strip searched in custody?

Yes.

I think the evidence suggests the entire process from start to finish was the result of rotten, corrupt, unlawful, abusive and misogynist police work.

The woman might have been 'irritating' or have had political views the police find distasteful or disagree with.

That does not make her a legitimate target for abuse, harassment and assault.

@ArabellaScott

Are you one who accepts that the arrest was lawful at that point in time?

No.

Are you one who thinks that she should not have been strip searched in custody?

Yes.

I think the evidence suggests the entire process from start to finish was the result of rotten, corrupt, unlawful, abusive and misogynist police work.

I agree and the language is a powerful reminder of the thought processes behind the actions

Amd likely why the recent murderer was able to operate despite same sort of expressions

Yes. You can't give the police the benefit of the doubt but assume the worst for the civilian.

Plus these police aren't operating in a vacuum. They were within a system that clearly was able to shield and protect them from any kind of comeback for YEARS. They knew they could act with impunity. This suggests the CPA have also got questions to be asked.

Your questions, Felix, actually make a good point and illustrate that it's not about a few individual officers but an entire system that is failing and in some cases harming women.

How am I 'smearing the woman involved'?
You've repeatedly accused her of assaulting a police officer and obstructing an arrest @Felix125.

When she was cleared of all wrongdoing.

Felix's response to the study that showed 93% fewer complaints when police wore bodycams:

Could this be that officers are being better behaved when wearing a camera

Or

People who used to complain about police interactions they have had now think there is no point doing so as the encounter was recorded so their complaint wont go anywhere?

Its a big difference - 93%

People who used to complain about police interactions they have had now think there is no point doing so as the encounter was recorded so their complaint wont go anywhere?

To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. And it is quite clear what Felix's hammer is - the police can do no wrong and the public are the enemy out to get them. (I find the latter belief more worrying than the former)

@Mumoftwoinprimary

In order to believe that the strip search was not a horrific assault you have to believe three things:-

1. The arrest was justified.
2. The strip search was justified.
3. The strip search was done appropriately.

1. I have my doubts about. She was acquitted. And I have evidence about the relationship the police officers at that station have with the truth.
2. I have even stronger doubts about. They said it was authorised because they were concerned that she was concealing something that she might use to go harm herself. The custody sergeant also said “treat her like a terrorist, I don’t care”. To me that doesn’t sound like a person focussed on their concerns about her.
3. Even stronger doubts. They demonstrated by their own words that they enjoyed ridiculing her. She also had a number of injuries and talked of them touching her intimately.

To me, I can’t imagine any reasonable person being able to say “yes, yes, yes” to all three of these questions.

Felix’s view is interesting. They are a self proclaimed respectful police officer who follows the law. But they are completely unable to look at a situation and admit that it is likely - not definite but likely - that a police officer or a number of police officers have committed some pretty horrific acts. Even though they have evidence that these police officers did some different but connected pretty horrific acts.

It shows why conviction rates of police officers who commit domestic abuse are even worse than the (embarrassingly low) conviction rates of domestic abuse by the general public. It shows why Wayne Couzens was able to carry on as a police officer even after some very red flags were shown about him. If (self proclaimed) “good cops” are of the view that if they didn’t see it then there is nothing to see as far as the malpractice of other officers goes then that really does explain exactly why so many violent officers are able to carry on doing whatever they like.

For this to come out a young woman has had to battle for a decade. Her strength is to be applauded. But what is sickening is not what happened to her but what must have happened to so many other people who were at the mercy of these officers who were not as strong, who were not as intelligent, who were not as brave, who were unable to fight. Their stories will never be told.

This is what I think but less angry

I think forcibly stripping a woman naked while laughing at her body hair is sexual assault

The fact the the cop here doesn’t is exactly why I am ACAB these days.
I tried to be patient and understanding but the older I got the more abuse of power I have seen.

Police follow the law regardless of morality

They close ranks even when their law breaking can be proved beyond doubt (as helpfully and lengthily evidence by felix here)

How you put on that uniform and don’t feel sick with yourself I will never understand

@TooBigForMyBoots

How am I 'smearing the woman involved'? You've repeatedly accused her of assaulting a police officer and obstructing an arrest *@Felix125*.

I am not accusing her - I wasn't there. I am stating what she has been arrested for

@ArabellaScott

When she was cleared of all wrongdoing.

She was cleared later after a trial

The officer who arrested can't fast-forward time to see what the result at court was

The arrest was an abuse of power in the first place

People in power don’t appreciate being challenged and they thought they’d teach her a lesson.
Unfortunately for them she knew her rights and was able to show them up for what they were… bullies.

Just you keep defending them though

It’s clearly been a real education for many here