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?

@Passtherioja

Well if there ever any doubt that the disgraceful behaviour of the police is ingrained in their very being then *@Felix125* has proven that it is.

There's no hope-they just think they're right and will defend their actions and the actions of their colleagues to the very end. "Deny, deny, deny."

...and please don't feel the need to "put me right" you won't change my opinion of the police -it's based on my marriage to a prolific serial DV offender who worked. in CID and thought he could do anything he liked because he was in the police, and my interactions with his colleagues who were equally offensive. I also don't need you to answer my question-I haven't asked you anything.

Now DFOD and go and find another thread to harass.

No - I have said quite a few times on here - 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 are reading into this that I am supporting them.

Now DFOD and go and find another thread to harass.
I am answering other points raised by other posters - i personally think its rude not to answer them or just ignore people - but that's just me.

@Toomanyradishes

But Toomanyradishes seems reluctant to do this and prevent future situations like this

Oh my, its suddenly become my sole responsibility to stop strip searches being used! Once again its all a womans fault. Fuck you, like you would do anything with the information anyway.

Ive sent the suggestion to the police digital service as they are partnering with the police forces on digital innovation. A much better idea than sending it to someone who may or may not be an officer and certainly seems vested in justifying strip searches no matter what. So Ive done my bit thanks very much.

Your comment about me is disgusting, how dare you suggest I am reluctant to prevent strip searches. Classic DARVO in action

Great - if you've submitted the idea forward - I'll await its roll out.

But if you can provide me a link to it - i can put something forward with our force to look into it too. But if you don't want to, then its up to you.

The issue still stands about what we do in the mean time though?

You really arent listening to me are you felix

To be clear, I have no idea who you are or if you are even a police officer. If you are actually an officer I have been left with zero confidence in your ability to effect positive change. And I certainly dont think you are capable of getting technology in at a national level which is what the organisation I have sent the info to will do if possible.

Do you really not understand that if someone doesnt like or trust you, they arent going to engage with you on these things. However if you tell me which force you work for I can send the recomendation to your force directly, bypassing you, because again, i dont trust you.

Finally tell me where I said this was going to solve the problem immediately. You really do like putting words into my mouth dont you, or subtly twisting my words to make them have a different meaning. For someone so pedantic about every nuance of our languagein conversations where it is wholly inappropriate to do so, you are very casual about playing it back in a way that suits you.

I love the 'if you have submitted an idea' no felix, I have submitted an idea. And if you tell me your force I will subit it to them. But beyond that I am no longer angaging wih you because you show patterns of behaviour that some abusers employ and I will no longer help you get your jollies in this way on this thread.

www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/what-happens-police-strip-search-england-wales/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20BBC%20reported,Asian%2C%20and%20Minority%20Ethnic%20detainees.

Not sure if this has already been posted but this contains some interesting information, e.g.

Strip searches are disproportionately aimed at black, asian and ethnic minorities
Body cavity searches should be done by medical professionals which is a relief as I would be much more trusting of a nurse than the police currently
The met police have a much higher proportion of strip searches than expectec and some may be deemed to be unneccessary (surprised much!)
And the met police seem to like strip searching under 18 year olds

(Sorry about all my spelling mistakes in this thread my touch screen on my tablet is faulty which makes typing tricky, I must get it fixed!)

Its worth checking out the link so you know what should happen, just in case, a in this instance, you get arrested for daring to hand a card to someone

In you previous posts, you commented that:

So realistically other methods are available, technology exists
And that body cavity scanners exist & scanners were used in the Golden Globes.

This implied that the scanners are out there for us to use and why aren't we using them. This gave a sense that it can be immediately implemented - sorry if i have misunderstood you.

If you don't want to tell me the link to this technology, its no problem. I will discuss this with our custody management team or our technical support staff who can contact the 'police digital service' directly.

Are these the type you mean: www.gatwickairport.com/at-the-airport/flying-out/security/security-scanners/

We can then build a business case so we can trial them.

You are correct - physical body cavity searches can only be done by a physician. So if a person has an item plugged into a body cavity, its only a doctor, consultant who can remove it.

Police officers can look into a cavity but they can not touch.

If they sight an item which has been plugged, the subject is usually handcuffed, re-dressed and taken to A&E. Where it can be up to a 5 hour wait in which the officers remain with subject and their handcuffs are controlled.

You really arent listening to me are you felix

Tbf to @Felix125, it's not that he isn't listening, he is so institutionalised that he can't hear it. This is a huge problem for people dealing with the police.

@TooBigForMyBoots

You really arent listening to me are you felix

Tbf to @Felix125, it's not that he isn't listening, he is so institutionalised that he can't hear it. This is a huge problem for people dealing with the police.

I am listening.

In a previous posts, Toomanyradishes commented that:

So realistically other methods are available, technology exists
And that body cavity scanners exist & scanners were used in the Golden Globes.

This implied that the scanners are out there for us to use and why aren't we using them.

And these scanners sound really good and really useful for us (as mentioned by Toomanyradishes).

But if they don't trust me enough to tell me more about them, no problem - I will discuss this with our custody management team or our technical support staff who can contact the 'police digital service' directly. If the idea has been submitted, they can take it from there and negotiate our force being considered for a trial.

29TooBigForMyBoots

*You really arent listening to me are you felix

Tbf to @Felix125, it's not that he isn't listening, he is so institutionalised that he can't hear it. This is a huge problem for people dealing with the police.*

I think unfortunately you are right, the picking and choosing bits of things and making them something they arent is concerning too. I mean, it wasnt like my respect for the police was at an all time high, but still...

On the plus side ive learnt a lot from this thread about what the police should and should not do, from the fantasic posters on here, which given the way things are going now with police pursuing 'wrongthink' could turn out to be suprisingly useful one day

Im reading a book about some suffrages now and how it was a badge of honour of a kind to be arrested, because it made them feel like they might effect change, now that ut appears you can be arrested for making someone aware of their rights, or speaking up for safeguarding maybe its time to see it as a bage of honour again...

On the plus side ive learnt a lot from this thread about what the police should and should not do, from the fantasic posters on here, which given the way things are going now with police pursuing 'wrongthink' could turn out to be suprisingly useful one day

Anything that challenges the police narrative of events, facts, truth and evidence dont really matter and will be opposed. Women who challenge this narrative are subjected to violent sexual assaults / humiliation followed by years of gas lighting and victim blaming, like Dr Duff. Like @Whatthechicken experienced.

@Felix125 has shown the police mentality on their narrative being challenged very well. That is why if you are in the presence of police, film it or get someone else to. The police are known for "losing" CCTV.

And if they want to talk to you, get a solicitor. I understand that many still believe that police officers can be trusted. They can't. So if you do agree to chat to them if they ever say "now we're getting somewhere" or words to that effect, request a solicitor and stay quiet. The same goes for if they ever mention rape when the incident you are talking about is not rape related.

I don't understand why they'd mention rape?

They talk about rape to intimidate women into agreeing with their narrative, "if you complain about this it's make it harder to prosecute rape". Utter bollocks and never used when talking to men or male suspects.

No, let gets this right.

Your narrative was that - if a person is found not guilty at court, then the accuser must be lying. As you stated in one of your posts that the arresting officer must have lied as Dr duff was found not guilty.

I was pointing out that this is not the case, just because someone is found not guilty at court, you can not conclude that the other person has lied. And since the 'sexual assault' element was mentioned in the Dr Duff case - I drew an analogy with the fact that if your narrative were to be correct, would it then follow that in a rape case, if the accused is found not guilty, you would draw the conclusion that the accuse is lying?

.

I dont mind officer Felix posting and pushing this into Active. IMO, this thread should go into Classics. Women (and everyone else) should know what to expect from the police: gaslighting if you're lucky, violent assault and death if you're not.

Your narrative was that - if a person is found not guilty at court, then the accuser must be lying.
No it wasn't. You really are a "Bold Gendarme: @Felix125.

No it wasn't. You really are a "Bold Gendarme: @Felix125

Here are some quotes you gave that suggested otherwise.

TooBigForMyBoots Tue 01-Feb-22 17:02:56

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 Thu 03-Feb-22 17:06:13

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.

TooBigForMyBoots Fri 04-Feb-22 11:54:31

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.

TooBigForMyBoots Fri 04-Feb-22 12:56:39

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.

Your narrative was that - if a person is found not guilty at court, then the accuser must be lying.

As you can see from what you have quoted, I was very very specific. When Dr Duff was found Not Guilty at court, it was because the police officers in her case were lying.

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.

See Felix125? No narrative from me suggesting that all acquitted folk are innocent victims of lies. But I get your need to generalise, how else were you going to get your "rape" mention in.

BTW for a cop, you are shit at collecting and presenting evidence.

Your quote - "So if Dr Duff told the truth, and the court certainly believe she did, then the officers must be lying."

And that's not generalising is it?

Bearing in mind you have no knowledge of what actually happened when she was arrested, what was presented at court or any of the evidence offered.

And that's not generalising is it?

No, it is very specific.

Bearing in mind you have no knowledge of what actually happened when she was arrested, what was presented at court or any of the evidence offered.

I have Dr Duff's truthful testimony of her unlawful arrest and brutal treatment. I know that the police officers she encountered were misogynistic, corrupt, unprofessional liars. I know she was acquitted and her honesty commended at the trial. I know the Met had to apologise for the disgusting behaviour of its officers in Dr Duff's case.

Going forward, the police should not waste time running in innocent women to punish them for exercising their rights. They also should not waste time being uncooperative with enquiries. And custody sergeants should not be allowed to order strip searches, they lack the competence.

We are going in circles here as we have gone through these points in the previous pages - but since you commented:

I have Dr Duff's truthful testimony of her unlawful arrest and brutal treatment.
You have the piece that was in the paper/social media. But you don't have her interview record which will have been under caution and submitted to the court. This is what the court will have used. You also don't have the statements & other evidence provided by the CPS. And as you don't have either, you can not make a judgement as to what actually happened on the street which led to the arrest.

I know that the police officers she encountered were misogynistic, corrupt, unprofessional liars.
How do you know if the officer who arrested her was involved in any other part of what happened to her? Its quite common for the arresting officer to hand the arrest over to someone else to book them into custody and giver the circumstances & necessity for the arrest. The arresting officer plays no further part.

I know she was acquitted and her honesty commended at the trial.
And did the court make any reference for the 'dishonesty' of the arresting officers? And as you don't know what actually happened prior to and during the arrest - you can not justifiably say that So if Dr Duff told the truth, and the court certainly believe she did, then the officers must be lying.

I know the Met had to apologise for the disgusting behaviour of its officers in Dr Duff's case.
I am not disagreeing with you - in fact i have repeatedly said that 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..."

Going forward then......

You are correct, police should not arrest women, men or people of any age, gender etc to punish them (much to the displeasure of families with unruly kids who constantly ask us 'can't you just keep him in the cells for the night to teach him a lesson?'). No, the answer is no and always will be.

And - if this was the case with Dr Duff - baring in mind I wasn't there at the arrest either - then this would be clearly wrong.

But if other things start to play into the incident - can you see that it starts to get complicated?

So, the youth who was searched and was found with a knife - can we agree that he shouldn't have this and he commits the offence of possession of bladed article? And as such an arrest may be lawful.

So - if that youth is under the police's control (ie arrested) we can't have people passing 'things' to him as we don't know what it is. It might look like a business/advice card - but it may be adapted to be a weapon or have drugs on it etc etc. If that person then becomes 'agitated' with not being able to pass this card (and bare in mind neither of us were there so we don't know how it played out) it may lead onto obstructing police or assault police?

The police can not fast forward time to see if she is going to found not guilty at trial either.

So how would you prefer to see cases such as assaults on police dealt with? Are you happy for the police to arrest in such cases and bring them into custody?

And in custody, who would you want making the decisions for things such as strip searching? And what would be the logistics in that - ie what would happen to the person whilst they wait a decision?

TooBigForMyBoots

BTW for a cop, you are shit at collecting and presenting evidence.shock

Its a very good example of policethink though isnt in. Explains why there is such a high rate of domestic abusers in the police force, when you can justify assaulting a woman at work, why not assault one at home

Its that old issue, people who are drawn to positions of power are usually not good leaders, some officers might go into the force for good reasons but how do you stop the ones who like to twist words and turn the blame on others and justify assault from signing up. Maybe yearly psycological evaluations by independent experts?

I haven't justified "assaulting a woman at work"

I have said a few times now - that 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 can read that and say that I am justifying an assault?

And yes - why not do yearly psychological evaluations by independent experts. I'm all for that if it will root out any officers who are not fit for duty. I hope it would have stopped the likes of Couzens and people sharing images on their phones etc etc. I certainly don't want people like that in the police at all.

We currently get regularly drug & alcohol tested, fitness tested, financial checks, driving checks - so I can't see why psychological tests would be too much of a burden to organise.