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?

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

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.

You have to define how the assault was sexual?

She was being searched as part of the custody process. If the detention was lawful at the time and authorised by a custody sergeant, then she can be searched.

If they have used excessive force to do this, then this will fall into the assault offence - but you have to provide evidence to show that the assault was for a sexual gain by the perpetrator.

@Felix125

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'

The CCTV from the station has sound recording - yes. It is pretty unpleasant to listen to. And demonstrates that the police officers are liars when they said they acted appropriately.

It has only now been accepted what happened - which is why the police have now apologised. For the last 8+ years they have been saying that they behaved appropriately. I have no doubt though that her lawyers are looking now at the officers statements in court to see if they committed perjury. I suspect that they are salivating at the thought! The police won’t be though - they are hoping that they can make a nice quiet apology and pay a bit of cash and she’ll fuck off and shut up. Something tells me she isn’t the type though…..

We don’t know what happened at the stop and search. We will probably never know for sure. It is not illegal to inform a child of their rights. (What she said happened.) It is illegal to assault a police officer. (What they said happened.)

Each and every one of us has to decide who has lied here.

One of the things I tell my children is that you should never lie - even about silly things - especially about silly things. Because one day you will need people to believe you about something important. And people don’t believe liars.

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'?

This is whataboutery. The fact that some officers are genuinely assaulted doesn't change the fact that some officers make things up to arrest people.

This thread is about a woman who was arrested, violently strip searched and later cleared of committing any crime. CCTV caught the officers on camera using the most appalling misogynistic language about her and have been forced to apologise. Yet you seem hell bent on arguing that she did actually commit a crime - for which your only evidence appears to be that these fine upstanding officers wouldn't lie.

@FacebookPhotos

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.

No i'm not. i wasn't there.

I am merely putting the 'other side of the argument' across

If the officers have lied at court then they will be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice (or similar) - I'm just curious to know what that has not happened?

I'm impressed anyone has the patience to engage with Felix125. Worrying lack of ability to reflect.

How any decent person/serving police officer reacts with anything other than disgust to these details - and the scary lack of procedural justice - is appalling.

I've often wondered about strip searches. They can be traumatic for people. I'm not naive, weapons/drugs etc. But that's not a complete answer to me, far from it.... how far do we go in terms of physically violating people to mitigate risk.

@FacebookPhotos

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'?

This is whataboutery. The fact that some officers are genuinely assaulted doesn't change the fact that some officers make things up to arrest people.

This thread is about a woman who was arrested, violently strip searched and later cleared of committing any crime. CCTV caught the officers on camera using the most appalling misogynistic language about her and have been forced to apologise. Yet you seem hell bent on arguing that she did actually commit a crime - for which your only evidence appears to be that these fine upstanding officers wouldn't lie.

I was reply to Herjas post who said

" You are arrested on trumped up charges (normally asault of an officer, obstruction or disturbing the peace), taken to the station,"

I have said that I am not condoning the comments made by the officers. In my earlier post i have said that officers need to act professionally at all times

What I am saying is that is that if the initial arrest was deemed as lawful, then the custody proceedings in custody which followed are lawful. And again i am not condoning the comments made about her.

@MarvellousMrsMaisel

I'm impressed anyone has the patience to engage with Felix125. Worrying lack of ability to reflect.

How any decent person/serving police officer reacts with anything other than disgust to these details - and the scary lack of procedural justice - is appalling.

I've often wondered about strip searches. They can be traumatic for people. I'm not naive, weapons/drugs etc. But that's not a complete answer to me, far from it.... how far do we go in terms of physically violating people to mitigate risk.

When people stop using bodily cavities to sneak things into custody

Do you really see it in such black and white terms? Do we conduct intimate searches of visitors because there is a risk of smuggling items? Does that apply to prisoner officers? Or do you only lose all right to bodily autonomy when you are suspected of committing crime? Any crime?
It's far from simple.

"I assume she has then go on to assault the officer in some way, which is why she was brought into custody."

Why do you assume that?

"They need to act professionally at all times. They will come across people from society who's personal hygiene is poor, or suffer from a medical issue or sleep rough"

This has nothing to do with anything. They were making misogynistic comments about what women's private parts smell like to shame her. It's got nothing to do with actual hygiene.

It's pretty clear from the Guardian article that she was searched as a punishment. The words of the officer who ordered the search show this.

Yes sorry, a digression. The moral arguments over searches don't apply as the motive was clear. It still worries me that "lawful" arrest is felt enough to justify the search.

We can impose intimate searches on people so long as there is a power in law there to do it.

In the custody case, if a prisoner has a marker on them for concealing items or they present that they may be concealing items then a strip search can be authorised so long as the authorising officer can justify their reasoning.

Yes - i agree, any comments made about her were wrong. What i am suggesting is that any person that is brought into custody like that must be teat with professionally at all times no matter what the issues are.

If they have used excessive force to do this, then this will fall into the assault offence - but you have to provide evidence to show that the assault was for a sexual gain by the perpetrator.

This is utter bullshit. Abusers sexually assault for power and control, not for sexual gratification. This woman was being intimidated to "show her resistance is futile".
I'm quite shocked that someone who claims to hold so much knowledge of the criminal justice system doesn't understand that a sexual assault is a violent intimate crime, cuffing someone, holding them down, cutting their clothes off with scissors, grabbing at their breasts and putting your hand between their legs against their will is sexual violence. It's irrelevant that these three cunts were not getting sexual gratification from it, what they were getting was power.

What this woman got was PTSD.

@MarvellousMrsMaisel

Yes sorry, a digression. The moral arguments over searches don't apply as the motive was clear. It still worries me that "lawful" arrest is felt enough to justify the search.

Anyone who is arrested and brought into custody is subject to a search.

A strip search can be authorised by the custody sergeant so long as they can justify the necessity for doing so. Doing so as a punishment is not correct.

A strip search can be authorised by the custody sergeant so long as they can justify the necessity for doing so. Doing so as a punishment is not correct.

Yeah, seems as though they couldn't justify it and it was quite clearly done as a punishment.

Sexual assault definition:

A person (A) commits an offence if—
they intentionally touche another person & the touching is sexual

In this case it was a strip search whilst in custody. So it will need to proven that the sexual assault was done for sexual gratification by the officers and not just a search process.

@MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor

A strip search can be authorised by the custody sergeant so long as they can justify the necessity for doing so. Doing so as a punishment is not correct.

Yeah, seems as though they couldn't justify it and it was quite clearly done as a punishment.

But the custody sergeant was cleared of any wrong doing weren't they?

@Felix125

Sexual assault definition:

A person (A) commits an offence if—
they intentionally touche another person & the touching is sexual

In this case it was a strip search whilst in custody. So it will need to proven that the sexual assault was done for sexual gratification by the officers and not just a search process.

The 'touching is sexual' does not say the the offender has to receive sexual gratification.
The gratification in the case of sexual assault is wielding power, humiliating the victim, breaking boundaries. No one could receive sexual pleasure and it would still be sexual assault. They didn't strip her in a matter of fact way, they humiliated her, they commented on her body. There was nothing clinical about it.

But the custody sergeant was cleared of any wrong doing weren't they?
In a closed hearing, this is what people are saying, the police cannot effectively police each other.

Strip searches have long been used by the police to punish and intimidate women.

Isthatthebestyoucando

But you have to show the touching was sexual

In this case a strip search was being completed in which clothing needed to be removed and parts of the body examined. You can not just assume that this was therefore sexual.

Yes i understand that sexual offences are carried out by people 'wielding power & humiliation' over a victim. But it does not follow that if a person feels that they have been humiliated and power wielded over them, they have been a victim of a sexual assault.

@TooBigForMyBoots

Strip searches have long been used by the police to punish and intimidate women.

I would suggest that strip searches have been used on both males and females to ensure that items have not been brought into custody which could harm themselves or other people or police property.

How do you want the police to manage such persons in custody who they believe have items on them or are known for concealing items previously?

How many police custody programmes do you watch where there are names and graffiti scratched into the cell doors & walls. What do you think has been used to do that and where has that item come from...?

I read this and felt sick. The way they treated this woman was appalling, utterly appalling! All the officers involved should be sacked. How can women have any confidence whatsoever in the Met? My dd has no trust in the police at all which I find terrible.

@ArabellaScott

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.

No, the offences were not filmed.

The comments made by the officers after the search was filmed - and again i am not condoning any of that and i am saying it was wrong

The initial offence (which she was arrested for) was not filmed however. So this is word on word. Which is possibly why the court found her not guilty, in that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

But as we were not there, we can only go on the word of the arresting officer as to the circumstances of her arrest - which was used to determine the lawful custody and subsequent search.

Do we know if the arresting officer was actually involved in the strip search?

We seem to doubt the arresting officer's word based on the comments made after the search, which may have been made by other officers entirely.

If the arresting officer is lying - why hasn't she lied to the point of creating a cast iron case? Or has the arresting officer actually been truthful and could only present evidence in their statement which present only a mild obstruct police offence and wasn't prepared to 'make stuff up'?

I'm only putting the other side of argument across.

As commented earlier - i don't live in a 'black and white' world which is why i'm suggesting the other argument.

Assume and suggest whatever you like @Felix125. You clearly have no idea.