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?

@BaronessEllarawrosaurus

Felix125

You're behaviour on this thread is scaring me, I used to believe there were a few bad apples but most police were decent people. You are making me think that belief is wrong. You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Lets face it the police arrested this woman on "suspicion of obstruction and assault" but you don't need any evidence to do that and I suspect it's the sort of case that is just rubber stamped by cps rather than actually being checked over. Read that again "Suspicion"

Have some consideration for the fact that you trying to defend the arrest is not increasing the public trust in the police

yet other people on this thread have accepted that the arrest was not the issue. (Around page 6 or so)

And of course you need evidence - what are the CPS/court going to use if there isn't any. How do you know that there isn't an independent person that has also provided a witness statement.

CPS are an independent body who scrutinise the evidence put before them. Have you tried to get a case past CPS?

@Aspiringmatriarch

It's been very eye opening reading Felix125's responses on this thread. Horrified by the thought that people like him have the legal right to do strip searches. I think the law needs to be changed on this. It is such an extreme and degrading act, surely it should only happen in situations where there is a real and substantial reason to think someone is likely to be concealing a weapon? There are plenty of other ways to safeguard someone in custody. Even if someone is being uncooperative, a pat-down would suffice in the vast majority of instances.

Felix, where is your response to the trauma and degradation this woman was put through? You don't have one really, do you? You wouldn't be posting all over a thread where women are discussing their experiences if so, minimising and blaming.

Yes sorry - I have looked back and i don't think I've mentioned the following:

The language used and the comments made were wrong and if the process which i described on page 6/7 for searching was stepped outside of and she was assaulted for no reason other than to effect the search - then it was wrong.

Do you know how many people who come into custody have conceals markers?

How many people who have drugs plugged in all sorts of bodily cavities?

I'm not saying that Dr Duff had any drugs plugged, but we don't know this unless they are searched if there classed as an unknown risk.

Even the boy who was stop searched had the knife concealed into his sock - so this might not have been picked up in a pat down.

So, if someone has a 'conceals marker' on PNC - is that enough for you to believe a strip search is necessary?

What if those people get wise to the fact that all you have to do in custody is to refuse your details, then they can't authorise a strip search because they can't search you details on PNC? Do you think you will get loads of people stashing things in custody - just in case they get remanded back to jail?

Yes - i understand that it was a traumatic and a degrading thing that she was put through - no strip search is anything else.

But what is the alternative then when the risks are so high and the amount of items which have been sneaked into custody & prisons by concealing in various body parts has been so high over the years?

Strip searches are quite a frequent task in custody - and as i have said before, the vast, vast majority are done compliantly. But if the subject is not compliant or indeed becomes violent (and I'm not saying the Dr Duff was violent) how do you want the police/custody staff to proceed?

What are these other ways of safeguarding people in custody you mention?

@TooBigForMyBoots

Felix125 You're behaviour on this thread is scaring me, I used to believe there were a few bad apples but most police were decent people. You are making me think that belief is wrong. You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.

You should be scared @BaronessEllarawrosaurus.

It's been very eye opening reading Felix125's responses on this thread.

Yes it has @Aspiringmatriarch. I would urge every woman on here to reread Officer Felix's posts on this thread.

Yes people have and commented on them - I usually reply to these comments. Its called a discussion forum for this reason.

Which responses then are you at odds with, then we can discuss them.

Felix, it's apparent that you lack the imagination either to comprehend the distress caused in this case (and many others like it) or to consider that there might actually be a better way to do things. Do we strip search people going through airport security in case they're concealing something in a body cavity? No, because that would be incredibly degrading and disproportionate. Even though they could theoretically pose a risk - you don't know, any more than you know whether someone in custody is necessarily a risk. Stop parroting rules and regulations and actually think critically about this. The threshold should be very high to ever justify such a dehumanising procedure. Just because something may be within the law, doesn't make it morally acceptable. You could use CCTV, better supervision, even handcuffs if you think someone is potentially dangerous. You're essentially saying that if someone won't give their name they should be subject to being forcibly stripped. This is nonsene, it should be an absolute last resort.

In this specific instance, there was no legitimate reason to think the woman in custody posed a risk and it's very disingenuous to keep talking about safeguarding when in fact, after ten years the police have been forced to apologise to and compensate this victim, and at the time of the arrest they were quite clearly acting in a disgusting and unlawful manner.

@Felix125 Putting everything else aside for a minute, (even though I don’t agree with you, I do appreciate you sticking around). It must make you quite annoyed that your legitimate power as a police officer is being degraded by ‘the bad apples’ and that trust in the police service is at an all time low amongst the female population. From your point of view and your expertise how should the police service regain trust from the female population, how do they go about that?

@Aspiringmatriarch

Felix, it's apparent that you lack the imagination either to comprehend the distress caused in this case (and many others like it) or to consider that there might actually be a better way to do things. Do we strip search people going through airport security in case they're concealing something in a body cavity? No, because that would be incredibly degrading and disproportionate. Even though they could theoretically pose a risk - you don't know, any more than you know whether someone in custody is necessarily a risk. Stop parroting rules and regulations and actually think critically about this. The threshold should be very high to ever justify such a dehumanising procedure. Just because something may be within the law, doesn't make it morally acceptable. You could use CCTV, better supervision, even handcuffs if you think someone is potentially dangerous. You're essentially saying that if someone won't give their name they should be subject to being forcibly stripped. This is nonsene, it should be an absolute last resort.

In this specific instance, there was no legitimate reason to think the woman in custody posed a risk and it's very disingenuous to keep talking about safeguarding when in fact, after ten years the police have been forced to apologise to and compensate this victim, and at the time of the arrest they were quite clearly acting in a disgusting and unlawful manner.

You airport comparison draws similarities to custody.

The vast majority of people coming through an airport are complaint, give their details/passport when required, checks can be carried out if anything shows up (could be wanted or fleeing justice in their country etc etc).

If they refuse their details or have no passport - do we just allow them through security? Or do they get detained and placed into custody. When in custody, they will have the same issues as to safeguarding them. They will pose as an unknown risk.

Police custody will be the same. The vast majority of people coming through custody are compliant, give their details and can be risk assessed.

Quite a number of people in custody will go directly into a prison - either through a remand or recall to prison etc etc. So they will consider sneaking items in with them. And on top of this, we will have a number of deaths in police custody or shortly after police custody each year by self harm.

I know its not a pleasant experience and one which will be degrading to the person being searched. But if society is happy for us not to do this - then will society be happy with accepting a number of deaths each year in custody by items being sneaked in? Or is the risk to life too high for that?

Using CCTV in cells wont stop someone producing an item from a bodily cavity and using it - either on themselves or others. You can't have someone handcuffed for up to 24 hours - that will be classed as unnecessary physical torture when you could have searched someone within 10 minutes and negate the need for handcuffs.

What I am saying is, if we don't know anything about the subject, how can we risk assess them properly to ensure they are protected from harm as well as others? And again I am aware that it is degrading and unpleasant - but the vast majority of strip searches are done compliantly.

At the time of the arrest, she was arrested for assault & obstruct. You can't say they acted unlawfully - unless you were there and witnessed it directly. The court has not pointed to any unlawful arrest by the officers involved. I can't say whether it was lawful or unlawful as i wasn't there. So I can't see how you can say that "...they were quite clearly acting in a disgusting and unlawful manner..."

But the fact remains that she was arrested and taken to custody where the custody procedure was implemented.

So, if you were the custody sergeant and you were presented by a subject who was refusing their details - how would you class their risk? Low risk or unknown risk? And what would be your rational for classing them as such - and then what provision would you put in place to minimise the risk further once they are in a cell?

[quote Whatthechicken]@Felix125 Putting everything else aside for a minute, (even though I don’t agree with you, I do appreciate you sticking around). It must make you quite annoyed that your legitimate power as a police officer is being degraded by ‘the bad apples’ and that trust in the police service is at an all time low amongst the female population. From your point of view and your expertise how should the police service regain trust from the female population, how do they go about that?[/quote]
Thanks for the appreciation.

What can be done to re-gain trust. That's a huge subject, possibly worthy of a separate thread in itself. I would be genuinely interested in hearing what people would have to say and what their suggestions would be.

As a police officer - do we put right what we see every day?
Challenge inappropriate behaviour in the police and make it morally unacceptable.

The shift I work on and indeed the other shifts we cross over with are excellent really. I genuinely don't see anything untoward. This could be that most of the shifts are now quite young in service and we are recruiting better.

A realisation that we can't step outside the law - so characters like Gene Hunt, Jack Frost etc are confined to the scrap heap. Now this upsets a lot of the public who think we should go back to that sort of policing as it 'got results' - but it was wrong. We need to show people why it was wrong.

People also need to realise that not every crime is solvable - there are limits to what we can realistically achieve.

Stop search for example has its limits and is bound by strict rules which the public don't realise. For example, a member of the public phones police to say there is a group of youths at the end of the road up to no good - and the one in the red jacket has a kitchen knife on him. As a police officer, if a approach this group, the only one i can search is the guy in red. Now common sense will tell you that if he sees me approach, he will have passed the knife to his friend - but i will have no power to search any of his friends. The original caller may say 'well the police did nothing' - but that's not the case, we just can't step outside the law and the public will have to accept that.

The power of the press can be another. We seem to publish articles when things go wrong but never when things that have gone well and given victims a fantastic service.

More use of BWV and having a police force not afraid to show it on social media or the press to show the pubic what happened in specific events. So in this incident - we could just release the BWV and allow the public to view it, then you will have Dr Duffs account and also the the BWV/CCTV footage too - then the public can make a more informed decision.

There's a few off the top of my head..... whether they work or not is another issue.

Start another discussion thread - you may get a better response than me starting it. I don't think many people like me on here too much.

Yes, the police would never ignore a description

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-racial-bias-black-man-arrested-white-suspect-escapes-london-metropolitan-investigation-bike-a8156586.html

Of course, a description gives them a license to assault children

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/28/black-teenager-on-family-cycle-ride-injured-during-aggressive-police-arrest

Clearly wrong - whats your point here?

I genuinely don't see anything untoward.

We know. You have communicated that well @Felix125. But you can't see past your belief that the police are always right.🤷‍♀️ So sure are you of this, you dont even need to look at the evidence available.🤦‍♀️

Dr Duff's case is a disgusting indictment on the police station, if not the wider force. That you cannot see it shows how little you see.

One thing is that the Gov (and we tax payers) get away with not providing a good mental health service, decent care in the community, support for non readers and make no attempt to reduce the drug probem in the UK - and the police have to pick up the pieces, stop and search wouldn't happen if there wasn't drug dealing amongst young lads, stats show most prisoners have a low reading abiility or mental health problems and /or drug problems and the police have to attempt to arrest, + convict them when what they need is support and education or drug rehabitation services. Plus the homeless teens who aren't provided with proper Care - the list goes on.
Right now the Met have been dragged into the Boris party carry on which is purely imv a ploy to kick the party fiasco down the road (in the hope we forget what it's all about) and to save Boris. Can't imagine for a minute they want to spend thousands of limited tax payers money on interviewing under caution a bunch of MPs / civil servants etc who are all desperately trying to save their owns skins. They do get the crap to deal with in society.
So I can see that a do gooder trying to stimmy an arrest or search would not be welcome. Doesn't excuse the behaviour of the police on this occasion.

A handful of examples end up in the media, usually because they’re such an obvious abuse of power, things are caught on video and/or the victims can’t be easily accused of bringing on themselves - though you give it a good try in this case. For every case that gets media attention how many never come to light? How many smaller incidents?

There’s a culture in the police that allows this to happen. The idea that these are ‘bad apples’ is bullshit. This case was just business as usual.

There’s a culture in the police that allows this to happen. The idea that these are ‘bad apples’ is bullshit. This case was just business as usual.

Yep @WhatScratch. Police culture is all about protecting bad apples as Policeman @Felix125 has shown on this thread.

@TooBigForMyBoots

I genuinely don't see anything untoward.

We know. You have communicated that well @Felix125. But you can't see past your belief that the police are always right.🤷‍♀️ So sure are you of this, you dont even need to look at the evidence available.🤦‍♀️

Dr Duff's case is a disgusting indictment on the police station, if not the wider force. That you cannot see it shows how little you see.

I haven't said the police are always right. I am saying that the process is there for a reason.

So, if you were the custody sergeant and you were presented by a subject who was refusing their details - how would you class their risk? Low risk or unknown risk? And what would be your rational for classing them as such - and then what provision would you put in place to minimise the risk further once they are in a cell? Or would you be happy to put them in a cell and hope for the best? Or are you wanting the police to follow the rules as set out by PACE?

And the comment of '...I genuinely don't see anything untoward...' is about the shift that i am working with - unless you know different.

If you think I am aiming the quote '...I genuinely don't see anything untoward...' to the Dr Duff case, then perhaps I may refresh you with a quote that i have been putting on most of my threads now.....

The language used and the comments made were wrong and if the process which i described on page 6/7 for searching was stepped outside of and she was assaulted for no reason other than to effect the search - then it was wrong.

@TooBigForMyBoots

There’s a culture in the police that allows this to happen. The idea that these are ‘bad apples’ is bullshit. This case was just business as usual.

Yep @WhatScratch. Police culture is all about protecting bad apples as Policeman @Felix125 has shown on this thread.

Who am I 'protecting' precisely?

The language used and the comments made were wrong and if the process which i described on page 6/7 for searching was stepped outside of and she was assaulted for no reason other than to effect the search - then it was wrong.

And are you suggesting that every police officer is by definition - a bad apple?

The initial arrest was wrong @Felix125. What happened at the station was unjustifiable brutal assault. What then happened was collusion and cover up amongst all the officers present.

There are some seriously scary bastards in the police. The rest will excuse and cover for them. Good apples can't exist alongside the bad ones, they become bad as well. They just can't see it.

@TooBigForMyBoots

The initial arrest was wrong *@Felix125*. What happened at the station was unjustifiable brutal assault. What then happened was collusion and cover up amongst all the officers present.

There are some seriously scary bastards in the police. The rest will excuse and cover for them. Good apples can't exist alongside the bad ones, they become bad as well. They just can't see it.

Are you saying that because she was later found not-guilty at court, then she should not have been arrested in the first place? The arresting officer should have looked into the future to see what the court result would be?

On this theory then, 2% of rape suspects are found guilty - the other 98% are hence found not guilty. So these 98% should not have been arrested in the first place?

And again - if you were the custody sergeant and you were presented by a subject who was refusing their details following an arrest - how would you class their risk? Low risk or unknown risk? And what would be your rational for classing them as such - and then what provision would you put in place to minimise the risk further once they are in a cell? Or would you be happy to put them in a cell and hope for the best? Or are you wanting the police to follow the rules as set out by PACE?

And I have said a few times on here now - the language used and the comments made were wrong and if the process which i described on page 6/7 for searching was stepped outside of and she was assaulted for no reason other than to effect the search - then it was wrong.

I am offering no excuse for this - what i am doing is explaining the process. So, if you can come up with another process in custody which will safeguard both the subject and those around them - then we are all ears.

Instead of saying we are all bad apples - see if you can answer some of the points above.

Are you saying that because she was later found not-guilty at court, then she should not have been arrested in the first place?

No, I'm saying she should not have been arrested in the first place because she didn't do anything illegal. Your rape analogy doesn't work as the police are rarely present when a rape takes place.

If the custody sergeant had good reasons to order a strip search, he wouldn't have needed to lie about it at the enquiry.

@TooBigForMyBoots

Are you saying that because she was later found not-guilty at court, then she should not have been arrested in the first place?

No, I'm saying she should not have been arrested in the first place because she didn't do anything illegal. Your rape analogy doesn't work as the police are rarely present when a rape takes place.

If the custody sergeant had good reasons to order a strip search, he wouldn't have needed to lie about it at the enquiry.

And how do you know she didn't do anything illegal?

The allegation was that she assaulted & obstructed police

My point is that we can not see what the adjudication is going to be at court from any offence whether its is witnessed by police or not. So, just because someone is found not guilty at court - it doesn't follow that they should not have been arrested for it in the first place.

The reasons for the strip search are still there - yes, they should have been recorded properly, but the reasons for doing it are still there.

And how do you know she didn't do anything illegal?

Because despite being an excellent case on file, it fell apart in court. The judges believed Dr Duff. They said so. It fell apart because it was a lie. A police officer decided to tell a lie about her and everyone colluded in the lie.

At no point did Dr Duff obstruct an arrest or assault an officer. She is entirely innocent of these charges.

@TooBigForMyBoots

And how do you know she didn't do anything illegal?

Because despite being an excellent case on file, it fell apart in court. The judges believed Dr Duff. They said so. It fell apart because it was a lie. A police officer decided to tell a lie about her and everyone colluded in the lie.

At no point did Dr Duff obstruct an arrest or assault an officer. She is entirely innocent of these charges.

No

There was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

That is very different from the court saying the allegation was a lie.

If the court are saying the allegation was a lie, the officer would have been convicted of perjury.

You don't know what happened, as you were not there - so you can't say what happened. You are using the court adjudication to make your conclusion.

So, it still follows that if you are saying she was innocent because the court found her innocent. And as she was innocent, then she should not have been arrested in the first place. Then you a back to the analogy that 98% of rape suspects by definition are innocent and should not have been arrested.

@Felix125, the officers present knew she was innocent. They were there. She pissed them off and because "pissing off an officer or two" isn't an offence, they invented a couple. Their colleagues all went along with it.

I've sat in on a fair few trials, it is not common for a defendant's honesty mentioned in the adjudication.

If the court are saying the allegation was a lie, the officer would have been convicted of perjury.

The Met are in the news again today - it seems that the “few bad apples” thing is wearing really thin:-

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60215575

The UK police service is broken. The only people not seeing that are the police themselves.

@TooBigForMyBoots

The UK police service is broken. The only people not seeing that are the police themselves.

I'm sick at heart for this.

It needs a culture change at every level.