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?

From the Guardian

’The police watchdog noted the offensive messages and bullying was rooted in culture: “We believe these incidents are not isolated or simply the behaviour of a few ‘bad apples’.”

Police leaders say they encourage whistleblowing, but the IOPC concluded officers did not believe their speaking up would be taken seriously, nor would they be protected from reprisals: “It is recognised that reporting a colleague comes with significant personal risk and knowledge of colleagues’ poor experiences who have done the same can prevent other victims from coming forward and embolden perpetrators to continue their behaviour.”

Another unlawful arrest and sexually humiliating punishment from Hertfordshire Police: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60158879

[quote TooBigForMyBoots]Another unlawful arrest and sexually humiliating punishment from Hertfordshire Police: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60158879[/quote]
That poor woman and she was fobbed off until she got a solicitor. How many more people has this happened to.

[quote TooBigForMyBoots]**@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.
[/quote]
How can you justifiably say that that "...they knew she was innocent..."
How can you justifiably say that that "...they invented an offence..."
If you were not there?

Defendants honesty and indeed the prosecution witnesses honesty will often be brought into he trial as 'evidence of bad character'.

Dr. Duff's honesty was commended. What does that say about the arresting officers? And we know that the officers at the station lied.

Why do you believe Dr Duff's arrest was legal @Felix125?

@jlpartnerrs

Just fcuk off Felix125 - you can't see the problem and so you are the problem. The sea you swim in is toxic

We don't want any further justifying, victim blaming, excusing and minimising from you, we've had enough as it is.

We see things differently, and we're not wrong

Ah, so you just rely on abuse towards me as an argument rather than answer in the points i asked.

Its a discussion forum - if you can't discuss then don't engage in the debate.

And I'll say it again - just for the record - ".....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 can't see how you see that as victim blaming, excusing or minimising.

However, if you want to discuss it further, then great - but don't just be abusive or swear towards me - as i have not done this to you.

@TooBigForMyBoots

Dr. Duff's honesty was commended. What does that say about the arresting officers? And we know that the officers at the station lied.

Why do you believe Dr Duff's arrest was legal @Felix125?

Is the arresting officer the same officer who was involved in custody incident?

Have the courts said that the officers have lied?

What has Dr Duff said at court - Has she said that any physical contact with the police has simply not happened?

Why do you believe the arrest was lawful @Felix125?

Is the arresting officer the same officer who was involved in custody incident?

I believe that one of the officers conducting the search was present at the arrest. Dr Duff in an interview said that one of the officers that assaulted her in that cell was a female black officer, she said that the same officer was treating a black boy badly (In response to comments she got from others that it's not as bad that women treated her like that) I think she meant it like women in a culture of misogyny can treat other women badly in the same way that a black woman in a racist culture environment didn't necessarily treat the black teenager with respect. I think that this is the officer who left the force before Dr Duff received her shit hollow apology.

@TooBigForMyBoots

Why do you believe the arrest was lawful *@Felix125*?

An allegation of an offence has taken place - in this case obstruct & assault police.

This can be dealt with without the need to arrest by way of a summons - ie - similar to a speeding ticket. We obtain the subjects details and the court later write to the subject and invite them to plead guilty or not guilty. If they plead guilty, they receive a fine, community service etc. If they want to plead not guilty - a trial is arranged for them and the subject attends court later down the line.

If the subject refuses their details, then the serving of a summons becomes impossible as the court has no details of the subject or address to serve the summons at. So therefore the arrest becomes necessary and lawful.

An allegation of an offence has taken place - in this case obstruct & assault police.
A false allegation made by lying police officers.

@TooBigForMyBoots

An allegation of an offence has taken place - in this case obstruct & assault police. A false allegation made by lying police officers.

So where is your proof (baring in mind that you were not there) that the officers have lied and its a false allegation?

@Felix125

So where is your proof (baring in mind that you were not there) that the officers have lied and its a false allegation?

Bearing in mind you weren't there either where's your proof?

I, personally have no faith in what the Police reported given the outcome of the investigations and court case.

You are excusing, denying, minimising and victim blaming all over this thread without any substantial proof. All we have is that the Met have apologised, and she was found not guilty.

You seem to think that because you are a police officer and the police who arrested her were, that we should take your word that what they did was lawful. When there's evidence that they did not behave in a professional way at all. But we should still take you word, because you're police

Remind me again how that went for Sarah Everard? Now think of putting yourself in the shoes of any woman reading the news at the moment about police standards (C'mon I know you can do this)

Why would we be cautious of taking the police's word at the moment eh?

If this hasn't spelled out clearly what the problem is - then you are part of it.

[quote ikeairgin]@Felix125

So where is your proof (baring in mind that you were not there) that the officers have lied and its a false allegation?

Bearing in mind you weren't there either where's your proof?

I, personally have no faith in what the Police reported given the outcome of the investigations and court case.

You are excusing, denying, minimising and victim blaming all over this thread without any substantial proof. All we have is that the Met have apologised, and she was found not guilty.

You seem to think that because you are a police officer and the police who arrested her were, that we should take your word that what they did was lawful. When there's evidence that they did not behave in a professional way at all. But we should still take you word, because you're police

Remind me again how that went for Sarah Everard? Now think of putting yourself in the shoes of any woman reading the news at the moment about police standards (C'mon I know you can do this)

Why would we be cautious of taking the police's word at the moment eh?

If this hasn't spelled out clearly what the problem is - then you are part of it.[/quote]
If you are accusing me of denying, minimising, victim blaming - then you need to show where i am doing this

I have repeatedly said throughout this thread:

"...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..."

Show me the post where i have blamed Dr Duff for what happened and said that it was her fault?

Show me the post where i have minimised what has happened as though it didn't matter?

Show me the post where i have denied that anything wrong has happened?

And i have said that i wasn't there either - so I can't offer any account or evidence to it. However, i am answering a point made by 'TooBigForMyBoots' who stated that ..."A false allegation made by lying police officers...". Its up to TooBigForMyBoots to prove the point not me to prove the disparity to it.

If they are making a statement like that, they need to back it up with something to show that they have lied. The court have not said that the officers have lied as far as i am aware at this point. No proceedings of perjury have begun.

Dr Duff was found not guilty. That is to say there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That's how the court system works. Just because one person is found not guilty, it doesn't follow that the accuser must be lying.

Part of this topic seemed to centre around the necessity for the search in custody - which i have attempted to give a 'custody point of view of'

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?

But people seem unable to answer this.

Other posters on here have had no issue with the arrest - so its not just me that's putting different points of view across.

Sarah Everard was a horrible, horrible event and the perpetrator quite rightly will not see the light of day again. But you can not justifiably say that all police officers are like him.

Show me the post where i have blamed Dr Duff for what happened and said that it was her fault?

You did it here @felix125
The handing the card isn't the issue.Its the assault on police & obstruct police which is.
She didnt assault anyone or obstruct an arrest.

@TooBigForMyBoots

Show me the post where i have blamed Dr Duff for what happened and said that it was her fault?

You did it here @felix125
The handing the card isn't the issue.Its the assault on police & obstruct police which is.
She didnt assault anyone or obstruct an arrest.

The context of that post was - that she wasn't arrested for handing the card out - she was arrested for assault & obstruct. That is what the issue was.

All arrests are for a suspicion of that offence - only the court can state guilty or not guilty.

But you can't, by definition, say that ".....She didn't assault anyone or obstruct an arrest...." as you were not there to view it.

Unless you can get the court transcripts and find out exactly what was said and what was in question - we can only assume what the arguments were at the trial.

An assault could range from a full on punch to the face of the police officer. Or it could have been that a person has moved the police officer to one side so they can get past. And anything in between. (and I'm not saying Dr Duff has done any of this)

And i'm not saying that an assault has taken place - i can't say that as i wasn't there either.

But, to satisfy the offence at court, the prosecution have to demonstrate that "a person is guilty if they commit any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence."

Now violence can range from a simple push to being struck by an object. Even the threat of violence will satisfy the assault definition - so somebody waving their fist at a person - is an assault.

So it depends on the court if they believe the application of force by the subject satisfies the definition to have been intentional or reckless.

There are loads of stated cases for assaults where the law is 'tested' if an event seems to fall into a grey area and the court will make a ruling.

And again, I am not saying that Dr Duff's case falls into this - i wasn't there and have not read the transcripts

But please understand that often things are not clear cut. And its not simply a case that if the subject is found not guilty - then therefore the other party must have lied.

But please understand that often things are not clear cut. And its not simply a case that if the subject is found not guilty - then therefore the other party must have lied.

I know that, but it's true in this case. The police officers lied. Dr Duff told the truth. What is your rationale for believing Dr Duff's arrest for assault and obstruction was lawful @felix125?

If they are making a statement like that, they need to back it up with something to show that they have lied. The court have not said that the officers have lied as far as i am aware at this point. No proceedings of perjury have begun.

Actually - no - it is the responsibility of the custody sergeant (and so you @Felix125 as you are determined to say he did nothing wrong in ordering the strip search) to prove that the strip search is authorised.

I believe that the current reason they are giving is that they were concerned about her mental health and that she might harm herself.

To you - as a police officer - is “treat her like a terrorist - I don’t care” words that you would use about someone that you were concerned might harm themselves? Is that how you would convey your concern about someone?

Re:- not been convicted of perjury yet so weren’t lying - the police officers stated that they treated Dr Duff respectfully. Do you believe that they treated her respectfully? Is discussing the smell of someone’s knickers how you treat a suspect respectfully? Or do you believe that they are lying about treating her respectfully?

@TooBigForMyBoots

But please understand that often things are not clear cut. And its not simply a case that if the subject is found not guilty - then therefore the other party must have lied.

I know that, but it's true in this case. The police officers lied. Dr Duff told the truth. What is your rationale for believing Dr Duff's arrest for assault and obstruction was lawful @felix125?

You can't just say that one lied and one told the truth - unless you were there or have the case file/court transcripts. You can say "in my opinion......." but you can't just accuse people of lying

Based on what we have been told, i would suggest the arrest was lawful as Dr Duff at the time was refusing her details to the officers.

If a summary offence (assault police and/or obstruction in this case) is being alleged to have happened by the officer it can be done via a summons to court. Therefore, the person is not arrested and just receives a court date through the post - similar to a speeding ticket if you like. This can actually be done for any offence - you can do this for a murder if you want. Historical rapes are often done like this as there is no necessity to arrest.

If they refuse their details, then a summons can not be served - so the arrest becomes necessary so the person can be put before the next available court or their details can be established. Its at court that the trial discovers guilt or not based on the evidence presented.

Its the same for say a shop theft. A manager of shop approaches police and points out a male who the manager says has stolen items from his shop yesterday. The police approach the male. If the male provides his details and they are verified, then he won't necessarily need to be arrested. He can be interviewed at a later date and summons served to his address.

If he refuses his details to police, what do the police do - just tell the shop manager than there is nothing we can do because the male is not telling us who he is?

In Dr Duff's case - if there is an allegation of an offence made by a victim (in this case the police officer) it needs to be investigated. This could have been done by obtaining Dr Duff's details, allowing her to go home and interviewing her at a later date. Then summonsing her to court after the evidence has been reviewed. This way as well, Dr Duff could have provided details of someone to back her account up maybe - then the investigation might have been NFA'd at source.

What i mean by that is if Dr Duff was arrested, put in the back of a police van and taken straight to the police station, all the witnesses who watched what happened just disappear and get on with their business. If the police stand with Dr Duff and start to obtain her details, you tend to get witness approaching you to give there side of the story. So, you might have got 4-5 people who may have said that Dr Duff didn't assault police; and again it may have been NFA'd there and then.

@Mumoftwoinprimary

If they are making a statement like that, they need to back it up with something to show that they have lied. The court have not said that the officers have lied as far as i am aware at this point. No proceedings of perjury have begun.

Actually - no - it is the responsibility of the custody sergeant (and so you @Felix125 as you are determined to say he did nothing wrong in ordering the strip search) to prove that the strip search is authorised.

I believe that the current reason they are giving is that they were concerned about her mental health and that she might harm herself.

To you - as a police officer - is “treat her like a terrorist - I don’t care” words that you would use about someone that you were concerned might harm themselves? Is that how you would convey your concern about someone?

Re:- not been convicted of perjury yet so weren’t lying - the police officers stated that they treated Dr Duff respectfully. Do you believe that they treated her respectfully? Is discussing the smell of someone’s knickers how you treat a suspect respectfully? Or do you believe that they are lying about treating her respectfully?

I agree and indeed have said that there has been a failing here - with the language used towards Dr Duff and it appears that the custody record was not endorsed properly as to the reasons why the search was authorised. If it had been endorsed at the time, then the records would show that and we wouldn't have the 'multiple reasons' given as to why it was authorised.

And i also agree - the term “treat her like a terrorist - I don’t care” is wrong

She should have been treat professionally throughout. If a strip search was authorised - then she should have been treat like someone who requires a strip search and the procedure carried out as i explained on page 6/7

But can you see the problem facing custody when they have a subject they know nothing about? The last thing we want is a death or self harm issue in custody or indeed any harm being caused to anyone in the custody suite. Lots of people in custody are vulnerable, unstable and often irrational - I'm not saying Dr Duff is like this - but as she didn't provide custody with any details, how would they know. Most people in custody don't want to be there and can become volatile/violent when things are not going their way (getting remanded for example)

So the question still stands - 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?

Re:- not been convicted of perjury yet so weren’t lying
No - they didn't treat her respectfully and I have said this a number of times now. But you can't say that because of this they must have lied about the initial arrest circumstances. Do we indeed know that the arresting officer was the same officer making the comments?

You can't just say that one lied and one told the truth - unless you were there or have the case file/court transcripts. You can say "in my opinion......." but you can't just accuse people of lying

Yes I can. The police officers were liars. They falsely arrested Dr Duff. They assaulted her and lied about it. They concocted a great story to give the CPS, but it was lies. Their lies fell apart at trial.
Evidence for the enquiry was "lost", so they lied at the enquiry too.

Tell me again why you think they were telling the truth @felix125?

You can't just say that one lied and one told the truth - unless you were there or have the case file/court transcripts. You can say "in my opinion......." but you can't just accuse people of lying

This is Mumsnet, not a court of law. Everything anyone writes here is in their opinion. That should be fairly obvious without having to include the words "in my opinion" in every sentence.

People will make there own minds up about what they think happened based on the information available and the perceived likelihood that the police decided to make an example of someone who was making their job difficult versus the likelihood that a young female student obstructed and assaulted some police officers apropos of nothing. They don't have to follow evidentiary standards set out by you and they absolutely can accuse people of lying if they think that's what happened.