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?

@NutellaEllaElla

It wouldn't have been difficult to read one of the links posted upthread. She handed an advice card to a boy who was being stop and searched.

Handing an advice card and assaulting a police officer are two different things. Something else must have happened

@alexdgr8

and the magistrate found that she had done nothing wrong, ie ought not to have been arrested, far less detained and forcibly searched. it was obviously done to discourage others from having the temerity to question what the police are doing/ advising others of their legal rights, in this case a minor, aged 15.

Has the magistrate ruled that it was an unlawful arrest?

Or is it case that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt? - but the arrest it self was lawful at the time.

The 15 year old would have been given their legal rights at the point of the search. The police must ensure the 15 year old's safety & privacy during the time if the search, so what they don't need is other members of the public interfering at the time.

Just a note on behaviour. My friend’s Phd is on culture within organisations and we were chatting about it the other day. there is quite a lot of evidence that ‘outsiders’ will act like ‘insiders’ and if they get promoted - not tend to promote culture change for other ‘outsiders’ but take on behaviour affectations.

You can substitute ‘insider’ for any prevailing group and ‘outsider’ for any minority group.

So in this case, the likely outcome is the women police would take on the affectations of the prevailing culture. Which they did. It’s better for them to be ‘in the group’.

It’s not right but it is sociologically common.

They arrested her because she pissed them off, lied about what she’d done (charges), abused her in custody and then lied about it for years.

@WhatScratch

They arrested her because she pissed them off, lied about what she’d done (charges), abused her in custody and then lied about it for years.

No, there is no such offence of 'pissing someone off'

There must have been an offence which she was arrested for. If it was a case that the officer has lied about the assault, then the magistrate would have looked at contempt of court or similar. But this seems not to have happened, so is it case that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt at court?

If so, then it tends to suggest that the original arrest was lawful at that time.

Are you really that naive?

@Cherryana

Just a note on behaviour. My friend’s Phd is on culture within organisations and we were chatting about it the other day. there is quite a lot of evidence that ‘outsiders’ will act like ‘insiders’ and if they get promoted - not tend to promote culture change for other ‘outsiders’ but take on behaviour affectations.

You can substitute ‘insider’ for any prevailing group and ‘outsider’ for any minority group.

So in this case, the likely outcome is the women police would take on the affectations of the prevailing culture. Which they did. It’s better for them to be ‘in the group’.

It’s not right but it is sociologically common.

I can see some truth in this

But on the flip side to it - it could also be the reason why people brought into custody often become abusive and violent when surrounded by other similar prisoners in custody.

@WhatScratch

Are you really that naive?

no - you need to explain further. You can't just arrest someone because they have 'pissed you off'

It's disgusting that this only focuses on the language used.

Given the description of how the was manhandled, I'd be pursuing a charge for sexual assault.

She not the

No, you arrest them for something they didn’t do.

She was arrested because she refused to give her name.
She refused to give her name because she hadn't done anything wrong.

’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’

She pissed off the police.

@Felix125

They said they arrested her because she assaulted a police officer and caused obstruction.

She said they arrested her because she handed a 15 year old a card advising him of his legal rights.

When the case went to court she was acquitted. Which means they couldn’t prove it.

So it comes down to “he said, she said”.

Of course “he said” he was completely respectful and behaved completely appropriately.

Which isn’t what the CCTV says. So we know that the police have lied and lied and lied over and over on this for years including in court.

From what I can tell “her truth” is backed up by CCTV. There is no evidence that she lied at all.

Therefore I choose to believe that the proven liar police officers also lied about why she was arrested.

Handing an advice card and assaulting a police officer are two different things. Something else must have happened

What else could you suggest has happened that meant she deserved the treatment she received?

Because from the wording of your posts, it sounds like that is where you are heading on this....

There must have been an offence which she was arrested for.

Do you honestly believe that police officers never make shit up to arrest someone who pisses them off?! There was video footage of an Lancashire police officer threatening to do just that a couple of years ago. And not one of the other officers present pulled him up on it, nor reported it after the fact. And when it was eventually investigated all the officer received was a written warning.

The police are not capable of investigating themselves, and cannot be trusted. Too often they claim "one bad apple" and forget the ending "spoils the barrel".

@Felix125 I've known an awful lot of people arrested for pissing the police off. You are arrected on trumped up charges (normally asault of an officer, obstruction or disturbing the peace), taken to the station, have people chat bollocks at you for a while, trying to scare you, then you're released without charge.

Some of them got a kicking. One a few broken ribs (though his arrest was not recorded and taken straight round the back of the station). Normally the police pick on people they presume won't report or make complaints - they just got it wrong with this woman.

You are a fool if you thunk there needs to be an actual reason for arrest.

Mumoftwoinprimary
Does the CCTV have sound recording?

If its obstruct police, then this will be a summary offence. If she has then refused to give her name, the arrest is necessary to serve the summons (as one can not be served without her details)
therefore at that point the arrest would be lawful

If the court are satisfied that the officer has lied - then why was the officer not prosecuted for contempt or perverting the course of justice?

Or is it more a case that at court, the burden of proof could not reach the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt'

@FacebookPhotos

There must have been an offence which she was arrested for.

Do you honestly believe that police officers never make shit up to arrest someone who pisses them off?! There was video footage of an Lancashire police officer threatening to do just that a couple of years ago. And not one of the other officers present pulled him up on it, nor reported it after the fact. And when it was eventually investigated all the officer received was a written warning.

The police are not capable of investigating themselves, and cannot be trusted. Too often they claim "one bad apple" and forget the ending "spoils the barrel".

Do you also honestly believe that members of the public 'never make shit up'

@SantaHat

I dread to think what dark secrets Cressida Dick must know about some very powerful people. How else would she still be in that position otherwise?

I have been saying this for years.

This poor woman. I believe her entirely. I long ago stopped involving the police in crimes that have happened to me - because I don't trust them and don't want them anywhere near me.

I am so glad that she has fought this fight. She deserves every compo penny she got and a wealth more. The previous investigation revolts me. They are not fit to serve the people and certainly not fit to investigate themselves! Corrupt wankers.

Do you also honestly believe that members of the public 'never make shit up'

Not at all. But you are here arguing that in this case she must have committed a crime because the officers can't arrest someone otherwise. Which is nonsense - officers absolutely can and do maliciously arrest people who have not broken the law.

Taking in to account the treatment she received at the station, I believe her over the officers.

This is so disgraceful. I felt sick just reading it. My dm was once strip searched as a teen (sexually assaulted to call it what it was) by the MET, but that 40 years ago. I am staggered that nothing appears to have changed in that time . What else is going on that doesn’t make news?

[quote Herja]@Felix125 I've known an awful lot of people arrested for pissing the police off. You are arrected on trumped up charges (normally asault of an officer, obstruction or disturbing the peace), taken to the station, have people chat bollocks at you for a while, trying to scare you, then you're released without charge.

Some of them got a kicking. One a few broken ribs (though his arrest was not recorded and taken straight round the back of the station). Normally the police pick on people they presume won't report or make complaints - they just got it wrong with this woman.

You are a fool if you thunk there needs to be an actual reason for arrest.[/quote]
No - I'm not a fool. There has to be a reason & necessity as defined in law.

And i know plenty of officers who have been assaulted, spat at, knifed etc etc. Are you saying that they tend to lie too to obtain these 'trumped up charges'?

You are not arrested on 'trumped up charges'. You are arrested on suspicion of a specific offence as defined in law. If the CPS process deem there to be sufficient evidence to secure a conviction at court, then the charges are laid and the subject gets a court date.

The people 'chatting bollocks' to you at the police station tend to be the ones given you your legal rights or an independent solicitor giving you legal advice - it may be prudent to listen to what is being said - especially if you have conditions applied to your release.

The ones that 'got a kicking' at the back of the police station is clearly an assault and needs investigating. Was that followed up at all?

Gosh, Felix. You seem somewhat naive, tbh, on how many police operate. I sincerely hope you never have cause to learn otherwise.

The offences were filmed. The evidence was pretty clear.

These were police acting in a shocking manner, abusing their powers and abusing a woman. They've only been held to account because she's spent TEN YEARS chasing them for it.

Most people would not bother. People are arrested for trumped up reasons quite often. Real culprits escape justice; miscarriages of justice are shockingly common. Justice itself is - well, I think 'blunt instrument' is underestimating it. A starship enterprise shaped blunt instrument to crack a walnut, is how I'm thinking of it.