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?

@TooBigForMyBoots

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?

No, its up to prove your point - not up to me to prove the disparity to it.

What are you using to say that they have lied?

@NotDavidTennant

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.

But if its a discussion thread, they have to back that up with something to be able to move the argument on.

Otherwise, we would all be just making comments that can't be challenged or discussed.

They lied. The (eventually found) CCTV footage proves the officers were liars.

Why do you believe they told the truth @Felix125?

And we know that Dr Duff told the truth, the magistrates commented on it. So if Dr Duff told the truth, and the court certainly believe she did, then the officers must be lying.

@TooBigForMyBoots

They lied. The (eventually found) CCTV footage proves the officers were liars.

Why do you believe they told the truth @Felix125?

Was the CCTV footage of the arrest?

@TooBigForMyBoots

And we know that Dr Duff told the truth, the magistrates commented on it. So if Dr Duff told the truth, and the court certainly believe she did, then the officers must be lying.

So we are back to this again:

"....And its not simply a case that if the subject is found not guilty - then therefore the other party must have lied...."

You agreed to this on the previous page

No. But I have no qualms saying that if the officers were happy to lie despite being on CCTV they'd lie when not being filmed. Also, you know, the magistrates comments and the Not Guilty verdict.

Why do you believe the officers to have been honest about the arrest when we know that they are liars @Felix125?

You agreed to this on the previous page

Really? What did I say?

Y'know although it's obvious to everyone with half a brain based on the probabilities of what has happened, that Dr Duff had the tenacity to see this complaint through despite waiting 9 years to actually get to the truth, that she was telling the truth.

You don't persue a complaint for that long unless you feel there's been an injustice done, as has been found, otherwise would the met have apologised?

They took over 9 years to come to that conclusion!! Ye gads

And we're supposed to believe a police officer when he says that the police were telling the truth when arrested, but only started lying when she was in custody.

It's lies from the beginning, we see you, Met Police

And I brought up Sarah Everard as a reason why women don't trust the police, because despite us being told that that event was an outlier, we see more events where trust is misplaced in our police force - this event being one of more being brought to light.

It's not Sarah per sae ... it's the breaking down of trust. And you have not answered that particular question, because I speculate, it's unanswerable, given these events

@TooBigForMyBoots

You agreed to this on the previous page

Really? What did I say?

You post of Thu 03-Feb-22 17:06:13

you said that "...I know that"

@TooBigForMyBoots

No. But I have no qualms saying that if the officers were happy to lie despite being on CCTV they'd lie when not being filmed. Also, you know, the magistrates comments and the Not Guilty verdict.

Why do you believe the officers to have been honest about the arrest when we know that they are liars @Felix125?

I have not said they have

I have said that none of us were there, we have not had any court transcripts or had access to the case file. So we don't know.

What i am saying is that you can't automatically say that they have lied. You can't say that because Dr Duff was found not guilty that the officers have automatically lied. You can't automatically say that because they have been caught out lying about the comments made after the search - they must have lied about the arrest.

If they were caught out lying at court, the court would have taken perjury action against them - as its quite a serious thing to do.

We don't know what happened on the street - there are also sorts of scenarios which we can play out where the assault may not be clearly defined. Or can be viewed as an assault or no assault from differing points of view.

It may be a case that no one has lied at all during the arrest - but the court have made a judgement on the facts presented.

@ikeairgin

Y'know although it's obvious to everyone with half a brain based on the probabilities of what has happened, that Dr Duff had the tenacity to see this complaint through despite waiting 9 years to actually get to the truth, that she was telling the truth.

You don't persue a complaint for that long unless you feel there's been an injustice done, as has been found, otherwise would the met have apologised?

They took over 9 years to come to that conclusion!! Ye gads

And we're supposed to believe a police officer when he says that the police were telling the truth when arrested, but only started lying when she was in custody.

It's lies from the beginning, we see you, Met Police

And I brought up Sarah Everard as a reason why women don't trust the police, because despite us being told that that event was an outlier, we see more events where trust is misplaced in our police force - this event being one of more being brought to light.

It's not Sarah per sae ... it's the breaking down of trust. And you have not answered that particular question, because I speculate, it's unanswerable, given these events

At no point have I said that the police officers are telling the truth. At no point have I said that the police officers are telling lies. I don't know as I wasn't there.

We still don't know if the arresting officer was the same officer who was involved in the custody incident either. Even if they were, we can't just simply assume that because they have lied about the comments made, they must have lied about the initial arrest.

The trust thing is being discussed on the other thread - but yes, I don't want to work for a police force which has corrupt officers in and i will ensure that they are gotten rid of as best I can.

Vetting will be the issue - how its done, the effectiveness of it. Does vetting need to continue through their employment. And what type of things would you look for in the vetting process which would lead to dismissal?

It was suggested some time ago that all police officers just have a 5 year contract only. At the end of this they will need to re-apply for their jobs and the vetting process starts again.

To re-gain the confidence back for women is a huge subject and not something that can be achieved overnight - but i am all ears with suggestions. We need to talk about things like this to discuss a way forward which is why i come on threads such as this.

you said that "...I know that"

Can you provide context? Or even quote the whole sentence @Felix125? I know that could refer to anything.

The quote from the other page is this:

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.

Your reply:

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?

Yet above you wrote:

And we know that Dr Duff told the truth, the magistrates commented on it. So if Dr Duff told the truth, and the court certainly believe she did, then the officers must be lying.

My point being is that - how do you know the officers have lied?

Because they are proven liars. What reasons do you have to believe they told the truth @felix125?

How are the arresting officers proven liars?
Have the court proved they have lied?
If the court has proved they are lying, how come no perjury case has been initiated against them?
Do we know the arresting officer was involved in the custody incident?

And also:

At no point have I said that the police officers are telling the truth.
At no point have I said that the police officers are telling lies.
I don't know as I wasn't there and I have not had access to the case file or court transcript.

We still don't know if the arresting officer was the same officer who was involved in the custody incident either. Even if they were, we can't just simply assume that because they have lied about the comments made, they must have lied about the initial arrest.

It could be that both Dr Duff & the arresting officer have both told the truth - but the court have ruled that there is insufficient to prove the offence. Or they have made a ruling that in the 'spirit of the law' there was not enough to show the element of recklessness or intent for the use of force used on the officers.

This is getting tiresome and repetitive

We are discussing that we have lost all faith in the police, and how awful this ordeal has been for this woman who has finally received an apology from the police, and here we have you, a police man determined to have your say, the last word and stamp your "authority" all over this thread

It's been said before in many ways, you are part of the problem and the fact that you cannot see that just reinforces what we are worried about and how institutionalised the misogyny is in the force.

Your behaviour is part of the problem

@ikeairgin

This is getting tiresome and repetitive

We are discussing that we have lost all faith in the police, and how awful this ordeal has been for this woman who has finally received an apology from the police, and here we have you, a police man determined to have your say, the last word and stamp your "authority" all over this thread

It's been said before in many ways, you are part of the problem and the fact that you cannot see that just reinforces what we are worried about and how institutionalised the misogyny is in the force.

Your behaviour is part of the problem

No

I am answering a question posed in the post above.
TooBigForMyBoots asked me a question and i have answered it.

I thinks its rather rude just to ignore someone who asks me a question - unless you think I should just ignore people who ask me something.

Repeating your opinion as if it is fact like a broken record may help you interrogate criminals but it rather tone deaf here. Especially as you selectively engage with comments, could also be seen to be rather disingenuous. As you have pointed out ad infinitum, you weren't at the scene and neither was anyone else here.

Everything you have said about the police officers responsible for arresting Ms Duff is speculation. You can't prove they were acting in good faith at that point. The only thing that has been proven is the sexist derogatory language and the rough handling of her after arrest.

You are rude, coming on to this thread and playing fast and lose with opinion stated as fact. You are here to tell us what to believe. You have made our case very well. And you still have to have the last word. Like your colleagues thought they had with Dr Duff.

You are rude, coming on to this thread and playing fast and lose with opinion stated as fact. You are here to tell us what to believe. You have made our case very well. And you still have to have the last word. Like your colleagues thought they had with Dr Duff.

Yep. I had to duck out of this thread for this very reason. The mansplaining cop perspective, over and over again, is too much.

The mansplaining cop perspective, over and over again, is too much.
Agree - dogged, repetitive. Just completely inappropriate for a thread about a woman who was treated appallingly by police. Say it once maybe, but over and over again? Must get a kick out of it in some way.
(And no Felix125 I am not seeking a response from you).

Had you been present @Felix125, at what point in the Dr Duff's ordeal would you have made the decision to lodge a complaint about the behaviour of the police officers in the CCTV footage?

@ikeairgin

Repeating your opinion as if it is fact like a broken record may help you interrogate criminals but it rather tone deaf here. Especially as you selectively engage with comments, could also be seen to be rather disingenuous. As you have pointed out ad infinitum, you weren't at the scene and neither was anyone else here.

Everything you have said about the police officers responsible for arresting Ms Duff is speculation. You can't prove they were acting in good faith at that point. The only thing that has been proven is the sexist derogatory language and the rough handling of her after arrest.

You are rude, coming on to this thread and playing fast and lose with opinion stated as fact. You are here to tell us what to believe. You have made our case very well. And you still have to have the last word. Like your colleagues thought they had with Dr Duff.

I am answering points raised by other posters.

I put my opinion across and people ask me about that opinion - that's why its called a discussion forum

And i know I can't say they were acting in good faith as i wasn't there - I have said this - I'm not sure why you are questioning me on that.

@Aspiringmatriarch

The mansplaining cop perspective, over and over again, is too much. Agree - dogged, repetitive. Just completely inappropriate for a thread about a woman who was treated appallingly by police. Say it once maybe, but over and over again? Must get a kick out of it in some way. (And no Felix125 I am not seeking a response from you).

Well you're getting a response

Other posters ask me about the points raised in my posts - which i then clarify.

Other posters on here have thanked me for the time taken to respond.

If you don't like the thread - then don't post

@TooBigForMyBoots

Had you been present *@Felix125*, at what point in the Dr Duff's ordeal would you have made the decision to lodge a complaint about the behaviour of the police officers in the CCTV footage?

I would have challenged them at the time - if i was there.