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?

I would not have ordered a strip search to show her that "resistance is futile". I wouldn't have ordered a strip search on her at all, and my assessment of the circumstances would have been correct. The custody sergeant didn't order it for Dr Duff's safety.

Ok

So you would have put her in a cell without a search and hope for the best.

And if it goes wrong - would you like to be held responsible....?

It wouldn't have gone wrong. Dr Duff did not have a concealed weapon.

But you don't know that when she was stood in front of you - you have know idea of who she is or what any future outcome was going to be.

You would have had to take a chance that nothing was concealed as you had nothing to judge your decision on - she was not telling you anything remember.

Chances are, nothing would have happened - but if it does you have to take the responsibility for her harming herself or others.

If a person does come to harm in a police cell or harms others - would you be happy to absolve the police from any fault?

Or would you say the police should have done more to prevent it from happening?

You have to have some sort of consistency when risk assessing unknown persons in custody surly?

I'd be fine with my decision. The custody officer didn't order this violence for Dr Duff's wellbeing.

She wasn't risk assessed as needing to be strip searched though. This thread is about a specific case and it's on record that officers were told to 'treat her like a terrorist'. So your whole spiel about safeguarding is totally disingenuous as far as this thread and this case are concerned.

As for whether strip searches are justified, I would say not unless there is a clear indication that an individual is likely to be concealing dangerous items. It's a complete violation of personal dignity and autonomy and I fundamentally disagree that having someone in custody gives you that right.

You are telling me that a custody officer with all his experience would not have been able to risk asses without a strip search? Seriously what an earth was he doing in the job, then?

I'm a level 3 safeguarding trained ex FE Student support officer. I regularly dealt with distressed students in a variety of situations. It was a matter of thorough risk assessment and training and experience that allowed us to manage students at risk to themselves. We often saw them briefly to begin with - we always knew the ones that were going to be time intensive, for a number of reasons

You are being disingenuous (gaslighting) @Felix125 if you say that the custody sergeant wouldn't have a clue - he did and he chose to exercise his power to teach her a lesson - we can see that and we can also see that the initial arrest was because she was being a busybody (assisting a fellow citizen) I know from experience that Police Officers do not like citizens who are in full understanding of the law as it relates to their rights.

I take part in NVDA as a Quaker we often wear T-shirts with Quakers on. Why is this? It's because we know that wearing them changes the behaviour of the police policing us. I wonder why that is, hmm?

jlpartnerrs
Handing out the card - its potentially because we do not know what the card is that she is handing to the 15 year old. He's already been found to be concealing a knife - so he's quite a risk to the public. When you consider the number of deaths in recent years from knife crime.

How do you know that the card which is being offered is not another weapon? Business cards can be split and a razor blade fixed in between the two leaves, then glued back together. I've come across these numerous times before. Its either a razor blade or a blade from a disposal razor - very sharp.

MDMA/ecstasy is also carried around on paper & card slips such as this and dealt as street deals.

I'm not saying that Dr Duff was dong this - but how are the officers supposed to know that at the time?

A business card is given to the 15 year old who then uses it to slash the officers face with it - you must surly understand why the officers are concerned.

If one of your students comes to see you, but refuses to say anything to you, refuses their details, refuses any past history etc etc. Later on that student then harms themselves or harms someone else - will you be held responsible? Because in this case, the custody sergeant will. How can they accurately risk assess someone by looking at them?

So, your students who were gong to be 'time intensive, for a number of reasons' - how did you determine what those reasons are? What factors did you use to establish their risk?

It doesn't matter what T-shirt you are wearing as to how you will be treat. So if a group of antisocial people join your group with the same T shirts on and start causing problems, would you expect the police to stand back just because of their t shirt?

Aspiringmatriarch - if your saying that we should only strip search someone if there is a proven history of them concealing items.

Ok - I can go with that

And we do search if they have a conceals marker on them - which means they have tried it before. But in this case, we can't check anything because the subject is not saying anything to us - so they might be a conceals marker on them. And, anyone with a conceals marker on them will quickly realise that all you have to do in custody is refuse your details and they can't strip search you. So anyone expecting to get remanded or is on a recall to prison will use this to sneak all sorts in.

I would rather not strip search people - it will save me a lot of time & save the subject embarrassment etc etc - but the public & any investigation will tend to blame the police if someone is found to have harmed themselves or others or indeed died whilst in police custody.

And its the custody sergeant that often carries the can - and faces losing their job and potentially jail. So, you can surly see why they err on the side of caution.

I'm not saying these things are easy decisions to make and nothing is black & white - but do we err on the side of caution for stuff like this - knowing the potential risk involved if it goes wrong?

Yawn.

Sorry@Felix125

Nope. That's a no I don't buy your narrative

It doesn't matter how many times and and how differently you say it I do understand what you are saying and I don't agree with you. I never will. You just cannot accept to disagree on this thread.

You think by weight of your words and explanations ad Infinium we will see it from your point of view.

No I do not see it / we don't see it. Because we fundamentally disagree on the principles you are arguing here

You say the police officers were acting in good faith

We say not

End of.

So what don't you agree with?

You don't agree that some people can make weapons out of anything?
You don't agree that some people can sneak things into custody?
You don't agree that if someone is not saying anything to us, we cant get information from them?

So, in future - we'll just assume.....

We'll just assume that the 15 year old could't possibly be carrying a knife

We'll just assume that if someone is passing that 15 year old something - it must be totally innocent

We'll just assume that when someone is found not guilty at court, its because the other party is lying.

We'll just assume that any person coming into custody who we know nothing about could't possibly pose a risk to anyone or themselves.

And when the wheel falls off, it couldn't possibly be the polices fault.

If you can't see that - we'll end the conversation there.

Someone who is a known risk will have their fingerprints on file. And no I'm not up for sexually assaulting random individuals. That isn't safeguarding. How about treating anyone in custody with compassion and dignity, coupled with an adequate level of security and supervision. People skills, common sense, fostering a respectful dynamic.

And if you can't see that then I agree, there's no conversation to be had.

You say the police officers were acting in good faith

We say not

End of.

And its the custody sergeant that often carries the can - and faces losing their job and potentially jail. So, you can surly see why they err on the side of caution.

How many custody sergeants have lost their jobs for not ordering a strip search @felix125? How many have been jailed for it?

We'll just assume that any person coming into custody who we know nothing about could't possibly pose a risk to anyone or themselves.

You could risk assess. Otherwise you are talking about strip searching everyone, except those known to the police to not conceal weapons on their person when arrested.🤨

[quote jlpartnerrs]@TooBigForMyBoots

Amazing that this person will not concede a single inch. If this is "good" police behaviour I would hate to meet a wrong 'un.

@Felix125

Just because you said it, does not make it so.

We see you[/quote]
He really can't see it. It does not compute in his police mindset.🤯

@Aspiringmatriarch

Someone who is a known risk will have their fingerprints on file. And no I'm not up for sexually assaulting random individuals. That isn't safeguarding. How about treating anyone in custody with compassion and dignity, coupled with an adequate level of security and supervision. People skills, common sense, fostering a respectful dynamic.

And if you can't see that then I agree, there's no conversation to be had.

Unfortunately, fingerprinting doesn't work like that.

Fingerprints go on file only from those convicted at court and even then its for certain offences only. Besides which, anyone refusing their details can not be fingerprinted - otherwise we will have fingerprints on 'record' for a person who is unknown. A we don't now force fingerprints off people who are not cooperative as the machine used requires them to hold their fingers perfectly still to capture the image. Its also risks damaging the machine. we don't use ink fingerprints anymore.

So a person could be a well known suicide risk or self-harmer - but their fingerprints would not be on any record.

We do treat people with compassion and dignity - as i have said the vast, vast majority of strip searches are done compliantly with no issues. But, you can display as many people skills as you want, if someone is refusing to talk there is not much you can do.

If someone is refusing their details - and i'm not saying they are violent or kicking off, they are just refusing their details - what security and supervision do you suggest if you're not going to carry out a search? Do you have police officers sitting in a cell with them? This starts to infringe on their human rights 5 & 12. Its also impacts on the number of police you have free to respond to emergencies.

So you've tried your best to get as much information from the person as you possibly can - but you have drawn a blank as they are not talking and they do not exist on any record. What do you do next - put them in a cell and hope for the best?

@TooBigForMyBoots

And its the custody sergeant that often carries the can - and faces losing their job and potentially jail. So, you can surly see why they err on the side of caution.

How many custody sergeants have lost their jobs for not ordering a strip search @felix125? How many have been jailed for it?

We'll just assume that any person coming into custody who we know nothing about could't possibly pose a risk to anyone or themselves.

You could risk assess. Otherwise you are talking about strip searching everyone, except those known to the police to not conceal weapons on their person when arrested.🤨

Loads of custody sergeants have lost their jobs from people harming themselves in cells or harming other people in custody.

Loads have lost their jobs and gone through court cases from people dying in cells from self-inflicted things. And its not just about losing their jobs - its the knowledge that you have effectively allowed someone to die under your care.

You could risk assess. Otherwise you are talking about strip searching everyone, except those known to the police to not conceal weapons on their person when arrested.

How can you effectively risk assess when you know nothing about them at all - not even their name?

People that come into custody and give their details and are compliant, can be checked. We can check police records, hospital records - we also have access to mental health teams that can check their records. Public protection information can be checked, vulnerable adults, probation service, previous missing from home reports etc etc.

All can be used to provide a risk assessment on the person. So if no 'warning signs' come back you can risk assess them as low.

If they still harm themselves in the cell or produce a concealed item, the risk assessment will still stand as a low risk at the time it was made. So if an inquiry commences, it will conclude that you did everything you could to check the safeguard of them at the time.

How would the inquiry conclude if you put someone in a cell, who you knew nothing about, but deemed them as a low risk?

Its not easy. A custody sergeant could be responsible for 30+ prisoners at any one time and the last thing they want is any harm to come to any of them whist they are in custody.

What are the stats for officers losing their jobs and being jailed for not ordering a strip search @Felix125?

I did google, but of all the stuff I could find on police officers being sacked, none of them were sacked for not ordering a strip search.

I'm useless at the best of times when searching google!

but a quick look found this:
www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/Learningthelessons/35/Issue_35_Case4.pdf

This is an example of a search not being done thoroughly and the consequences it can carry. I think reading it all relevant checks were done, as the subject could be identified.

But the DO (Detention Officer) still had a case to answer following the investigation and could possibly lose their job as a consequence.

The argument for strip searches seems to be entrenched in, this is the way we always do it.

But airports manage to control drugs and weapons without strip searching everyone.

Why not have sniffer dogs and scanners at stations? My dh is an engineer and when he visits prisons the drug sniffer dogs check the vans and he/his equipment gets scanned.

So realistically other methods are available, technology exists, so why arent officers out there shouting up about this, demanding better technology?

Are you absoluteky certain its not because strip searches are also being used to force compliance?

And I dont want to read once more about most strip searches being done compliantly, the vast majority of people do not want to strip off and be searched. The fact that they do not argue with aperson in a position of authority who has control over them doesnt mean they are all quite happy with the situation and no harm done. But it also doesnt suprise me that a male police officer wouldnt understand that a woman, for example, stripping her clothes without fighting when she feels like she has no choice, doesnt mean that she doesnt want to do it, or that she wants to be compliant

Relevant checks were not done. 2 databases should have been checked, only one was.
One officer was disciplined for failing to check the suspect properly when in the cell. She was not the officer who didn't order the strip search.
No officer lost their job.
No officer was jailed.

Loads have lost their jobs and gone through court cases from people dying in cells from self-inflicted things.
Can you give me numbers or stats for police officers who have lost their jobs and or been jailed for not ordering @felix125? After all, according to you there are loads of them.

@Toomanyradishes

The argument for strip searches seems to be entrenched in, this is the way we always do it.

But airports manage to control drugs and weapons without strip searching everyone.

Why not have sniffer dogs and scanners at stations? My dh is an engineer and when he visits prisons the drug sniffer dogs check the vans and he/his equipment gets scanned.

So realistically other methods are available, technology exists, so why arent officers out there shouting up about this, demanding better technology?

Are you absoluteky certain its not because strip searches are also being used to force compliance?

And I dont want to read once more about most strip searches being done compliantly, the vast majority of people do not want to strip off and be searched. The fact that they do not argue with aperson in a position of authority who has control over them doesnt mean they are all quite happy with the situation and no harm done. But it also doesnt suprise me that a male police officer wouldnt understand that a woman, for example, stripping her clothes without fighting when she feels like she has no choice, doesnt mean that she doesnt want to do it, or that she wants to be compliant

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.

Sniffer dogs will not be able to detect all drugs - so prescription medication such as diazepam, zopiclones etc may not be picked up by them. Dogs tend to be used for drugs such as class A&B. So, someone can sneak diazepam, zopiclones in etc.

Scanners will not pick up any weapons made out of plastics, wood, ceramic etc. Chords in clothing can also be used as weapons, piercings can be used to cause damage. Even things such as little 'supersoaker' water pistols that look like a child's toy are actually adapted to be viable firearms.

Strip searching is not done to force compliance - if anything its going to make the situation worse and anger the subject further.

When i say the strip search is done compliantly, i'm not saying that anyone is wanting to do it - by either the subject or police. But its sometimes a necessity and a lot easier if its done compliantly. In essence, its a lot easier if a decision has been made to authorise a strip search, that the subject doesn't fight against it.

Can you see that some people, both male & female, will have items concealed that are dangerous?

So, if a female prisoner refuses to be strip searched and states that she will fight against (and in this example she has warning marker for concealing items for example) what shall we do?

@TooBigForMyBoots

Relevant checks were not done. 2 databases should have been checked, only one was. One officer was disciplined for failing to check the suspect properly when in the cell. She was not the officer who didn't order the strip search. No officer lost their job. No officer was jailed.

Loads have lost their jobs and gone through court cases from people dying in cells from self-inflicted things.
Can you give me numbers or stats for police officers who have lost their jobs and or been jailed for not ordering @felix125? After all, according to you there are loads of them.

Yes, the officer believed that PNC would mirror the police database - but it doesn't. But there was a self harm marker on him - so should that have escalated into a strip search to ensure he didn't have anything on him?

The DO should possibly have noticed the injury sooner, then this could have been brought to the attention of the custody sergeant who then could have ordered a strip search.

No officer lost their job so far - but it seems as though the DO is still under investigation. The custody sergeant involved may also have been suspended whilst they were investigated.

I'll have another look on google - but as I say, I'm not the best at doing it. It may be that a lot of these won't be on google. I know personally of sergeants that have been suspended over incidents of harm happening to prisoners in their cells in custody - although of course it will be anecdotal.

Sniffer dogs dont react to prescription drugs because they arent routinely trained to, that doesnt mean they cant be trained to, but sure lets keep humiliating vulnerable people instead

If cords in clothes are a problem, get a person to change into overalls or others cloths for the time they are in jail. Then do a thorough pat down after to detect cords. This is still less invasive than a strip search

There are scanners now that can pick up plastic guns, and AI is being used to recoginse shapes e.g. ceramic knives etc. Technology exists to remove a multitude of threats.

Im sorry but i would have more faith in the police if they were shouting out for the updated technology and actively looking for ways to reduce strip searches. Instead it just sounds like excuse after excuse even when discussing a case that is akin to sexual assault not a strip search. But its okay because most people are compliant

There are a lot of times in history, and in the present where people are compliant about much worse things, because of fear, or lack of rights. Doesnt make the perpetrators morally right though

We have other ways, we should be utilising them as a first choice, not defaulting to strip searches because you can

@Toomanyradishes

Sniffer dogs dont react to prescription drugs because they arent routinely trained to, that doesnt mean they cant be trained to, but sure lets keep humiliating vulnerable people instead

If cords in clothes are a problem, get a person to change into overalls or others cloths for the time they are in jail. Then do a thorough pat down after to detect cords. This is still less invasive than a strip search

There are scanners now that can pick up plastic guns, and AI is being used to recoginse shapes e.g. ceramic knives etc. Technology exists to remove a multitude of threats.

Im sorry but i would have more faith in the police if they were shouting out for the updated technology and actively looking for ways to reduce strip searches. Instead it just sounds like excuse after excuse even when discussing a case that is akin to sexual assault not a strip search. But its okay because most people are compliant

There are a lot of times in history, and in the present where people are compliant about much worse things, because of fear, or lack of rights. Doesnt make the perpetrators morally right though

We have other ways, we should be utilising them as a first choice, not defaulting to strip searches because you can

Dogs can not detect something like zopiclone which is still sealed in its blister pack and hidden in a bodily cavity. The blister pack seal is air-tight

Cords - we can get them to change into other clothing or cut them out if they refuse to do this - but they can still hide them in body cavities.

People that carry ceramic blades don't tend to make them look like a knife and the plastic guns will not be made to like like a gun. I've seen cigarette lighters, mobile phones which are actually firearms. They can also do this another way and make an obvious plastic gun (the supersoaker) into a real firearm. I've seen tampons being used to conceal/transport drugs - these won't be picked up by a scanner.

And yes - we could probably buy a really expensive scanner which may help. But how much do these scanners cost? And is the public going to foot the bill to have one in each custody suite in every police station. And such 'top of the shop' scanners still struggle to find a human being in the back of a truck - so they are not always reliable.
The cost would be millions.

At at time when I'm getting told that my force can't afford to buy me a new charging cable for my works laptop