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

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

None of us do - as none of us were there.

We can only discuss this using different points of view - which is what we are doing

Unless you can clarify on the points which I have no idea on?

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

He was cleared of any wrong doing in 2018. The CCTV was finally made available in 2021.

Considering this:-

“Following the conclusion of the civil claim, allegations of misconduct relating to these comments were referred to our Directorate of Professional Standards and are currently being investigated. This investigation remains ongoing.”

I’m not sure he is still in the clear…..

@Gwenhwyfar

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.

Exactly - and it's quite clear that she was deemed punishable and othered by the police and now Felix125 is doing the same thing

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.

Give over. No one should be held down by police officers, their clothes cut off, and derogatory remarks made about their sexed body, their body hair, and their intimate clothing. For simply handing over a business card. Your minimising of this is revealing. And fucking pathetic.

@TooBigForMyBoots

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

It's a not so well kept secret and why protests are often white middle class, they have the privilege to be able to do these things

Let's not forget that the police are supposed to police "by consent"

How does this behaviour fit in with the "trust" we bestow on them?

They are charged with behaving in right order and properly within the law, they are not above it and the ends never justify the means. They should go that extra mile - that's what they are paid and trained for.

They SERVE us. We pay their wages. They are civil servants. Let's not forget that.

@Felix125

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.

Hmmmm.... you say WE can impose, Felix125. So you're a police officer?

Give over. No one should be held down by police officers, their clothes cut off, and derogatory remarks made about their sexed body, their body hair, and their intimate clothing. For simply handing over a business card. Your minimising of this is revealing. And fucking pathetic

110%

the offences were not filmed

I'm talking about the offences committed by the officers.

Hmmmm.... you say WE can impose, Felix125. So you're a police officer?

Yes I wondered this. Are you a police officer Felix?

I too used "we" but I meant "we" as a society.
(And wasn't of course questioning the legal parameters regarding searches, thinking about it more generally/ethically).

Maybe it's to be expected that those employed to uphold the law (which I think is Felix125's background) might end up doing so somewhat unquestioningly. It is quite scary though and proper accountability (missing as so painfully demonstrated in this woman's experience) is vital.

Felix

I wouldn’t believe a police account of events anymore unless they have camera footage to back it up. They abuse their authority, lie and cover up for each other and then are cleared by their own disciplinary panels.

@MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor

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.

Give over. No one should be held down by police officers, their clothes cut off, and derogatory remarks made about their sexed body, their body hair, and their intimate clothing. For simply handing over a business card. Your minimising of this is revealing. And fucking pathetic.

I have said several times now that the derogatory comments made are not acceptable.

But when you say 'no one should be held down' - does this include violent prisoners? And if a strip search has been authorised then that's what is completed.

And the offence was not 'handing over a business card' - the offence she was arrested for was obstruct police and assault.

So are you saying that police should not strip search anyone?
Or if you say they can, what reasons do you expect be for that process to be done?

@ikeairgin

Let's not forget that the police are supposed to police "by consent"

How does this behaviour fit in with the "trust" we bestow on them?

They are charged with behaving in right order and properly within the law, they are not above it and the ends never justify the means. They should go that extra mile - that's what they are paid and trained for.

They SERVE us. We pay their wages. They are civil servants. Let's not forget that.

We do police by consent - but its consent of a population, not just individuals.

And as i have said before - the derogatory comments made were out of order and we are never above the law.

But when you say 'no one should be held down' - does this include violent prisoners? And if a strip search has been authorised then that's what is completed.

I said: No one should be held down by police officers, their clothes cut off, and derogatory remarks made about their sexed body, their body hair, and their intimate clothing. Try reading the whole sentence again.

And the offence was not 'handing over a business card' - the offence she was arrested for was obstruct police and assault

From the article: 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.

A convenient allegation that she was cleared of. But a useful allegation so that the police could go ahead and assault / humiliate her. I see what you're trying to do here. And it's not working.

@MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor

But when you say 'no one should be held down' - does this include violent prisoners? And if a strip search has been authorised then that's what is completed.

I said: No one should be held down by police officers, their clothes cut off, and derogatory remarks made about their sexed body, their body hair, and their intimate clothing. Try reading the whole sentence again.

And the offence was not 'handing over a business card' - the offence she was arrested for was obstruct police and assault

From the article: 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.

A convenient allegation that she was cleared of. But a useful allegation so that the police could go ahead and assault / humiliate her. I see what you're trying to do here. And it's not working.

Yes - and I have said several times that the comments made were out of order. But if a strip search was deemed to be necessary, then it will need to be done.

And the arrest was for assault and obstruct. Its not a 'convenient allegation', its an alleged offence that needs to be investigated. I read somewhere that she refused her details which is why the arrest was necessary as a summons could not be served on her.

And if this has gone through CPS, then they have deemed sufficient evidence to pursue it to court on the likelihood of a conviction at court. So it has passed an evidential threshold for the court.

The fact that she has been acquitted means there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. But there has been no mention that the arresting officer has been accused of perjury or perverting the course of justice - so the court appear happy that the officer has not lied.

So, if the female has been arrested and brought into custody and continues to refuse her details, then no checks can be done to see what risk she is. For example, if she is a regular detainee in custody and has had not history of concealing items, then this will mean no strip search will be needed. However, if we can not check this, we can only err on the side of caution because we can not risk this 'unknown person' bringing items into custody which could harm herself or others.

So your comment it was a "...useful allegation so that the police could go ahead and assault / humiliate her..." is not correct.

People seem to be mixing two different issues here.

The comments made after the search are clearly wrong, unprofessional and should not have been done.

The initial arrest and subsequent authorisation for a strip search is a different issue - please see the above post

@Felix125

People seem to be mixing two different issues here.

The comments made after the search are clearly wrong, unprofessional and should not have been done.

The initial arrest and subsequent authorisation for a strip search is a different issue - please see the above post

No you seem to be mixing up what your opinion is and what the facts are.

The facts are that she was not convicted of any offense
The facts are that she was wrongly arrested
The facts are that she was humiliated and punished at the police station for allegations that she was cleared of in court

The facts are that the police have apologised and paid compensation for this, only because she pursued it for 10 years

@MrBlobbyLivesNextDoor

Hmmmm.... you say WE can impose, Felix125. So you're a police officer?

Yes I wondered this. Are you a police officer Felix?

Yes - 22 years service, not with the MET so i do not know anyone personally involved with this case.

I have never lied, bent my powers or anything similar in the job. i have dealt with all sorts of people and bent over backward to help them when i can. I also wont step outside the law - often to the frustration of the public when i say to them that i can just 'add things to my statement' or arrest people at will when i have no justification for doing so.

And yes, we have corrupt officers in the force - and i want them sacked as much as you do and i have routed such activities out when i find it and reported it. But the vast majority of officers are sound.

And just as we have some untruthful people in the police, we also have untruthful people in the general public. We have people involved in criminal activity and will lie to meet their needs.

So your comment it was a "...useful allegation so that the police could go ahead and assault / humiliate her..." is not correct.

In your opinion. Although I understand there are still ongoing investigations around the police conduct in this case. Finally. Handing out a business card is not a criminal offense. And the other allegations against her were simply proven not to be true. A convenient excuse however.

When the premise for arresting her was bogus in the first place, then the actions (strip search and humiliation) following on from that absolutely should not have happened either.

Yet the police continued to deliberately lie about what happened that day. Until the evidence was brought to light. Don't you even stop to consider why they kept lying? Work for Gwent police do you?

Yes - 22 years service, not with the MET so i do not know anyone personally involved with this case.

Well there's a surprise. Im not going to continue debating this with you. I can already see where you are in this. Not interested.

jlpartnerrs
No you seem to be mixing up what your opinion is and what the facts are.

The facts are that she was not convicted of any offense
The facts are that she was wrongly arrested
The facts are that she was humiliated and punished at the police station for allegations that she was cleared of in court

Where's the finding from the court to say she was wrongly arrested?
Wheres the finding from the inquiry to say the initial arrest was unlawful?
If she was wrongly arrested, why have CPS perused it to court?
If she was wrongly arrested, why did the court not throw the case out at source?

Really all of these police forces seem to be pretty corrupt these days don't they. An absolute inner rot has set in. Are there any police forces left that aren't rotten to the core.

Stop derailing this thread Felix. It's not a place for the police to come and defend their corruption.