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?

@Felix125 - I'm not going to debate what happened before she was brought into custody (although my suspicions are unlikely to marry with yours). However what seems to be pretty clear is that when the custody officer said she was to be strip searched he told them to treat her like a terrorist. At no point had there been any indication that she was arrested on suspicion of terrorism so I cannot see how that instruction can be explained. (Other than the police officers involved deciding to treat her harshly as a punishment - if not the instruction would not have been necessary.) If that cannot be explained away, and I don't think it can, then the grounds for the officers searching her so roughly start to look rather shaky to me.

I have complained a few times in the past...

Official complaints? How did they go?

Hmmm - I’ve been thinking about this. The crime that she was suspected of is very different to your average crime.

If someone burgles my house then there might be an eye witness description of a tall man with a bag with “swag” on it.

If the police later catch a tall man with a bag then the decision by the jury is not “did someone burgle my house” but instead “did that particular man burgle my house”.

In this case - if the obstruction and assault took place then it was observed by police officers. They know it was her. There is seeming no question to be answered by the jury except “are the police liars?”

And yet they didn’t convict her.

So the jury must have thought that there was a decent chance that the arresting officers were liars.

Not an innocent mistake of getting the wrong tall bloke but actually lying and arresting for no reason. This happened 8 years ago so the jury were not tainted by the fact that the custody sergeant felt it appropriate to talk about the smell of her knickers but instead they looked at a police officer, in uniform, who is almost definitely highly experienced at testifying and thought “nah - I don’t believe you mate”.

There is no “suspicion of” here - either she did or she didn’t. So, if she didn’t, then she should never have been arrested.

The strip search is another question about whether it was justified. The fact that they changed their minds halfway through the complaints process as to what they were claiming is their justification makes me very suspicious as to it being justified.

It seems to me that she had really pissed them off and they were retaliating. I don’t blame them for being pissed off. I have no doubt that she was very annoying. But you don’t get to arrest someone for being annoying. You don’t get to strip search someone for being annoying. You do not get to assault someone for being annoying.

And - as I have said a number of times - these officers are liars. They said all along that their behaviour was completely appropriate. We now have evidence that it wasn’t.

So - they said she obstructed and assaulted a police officer. She said she didn’t. Who do we believe?

They said they had concerns for her mental health. She said she had asked for a lawyer and was not acting at all erratically. Who do we believe?

They said their behaviour during the strip search was appropriate. She said they assaulted her and treated her with a lack of respect and in a dehumanising way. Who do we believe?

[quote londonmummy1966]@Felix125 - I'm not going to debate what happened before she was brought into custody (although my suspicions are unlikely to marry with yours). However what seems to be pretty clear is that when the custody officer said she was to be strip searched he told them to treat her like a terrorist. At no point had there been any indication that she was arrested on suspicion of terrorism so I cannot see how that instruction can be explained. (Other than the police officers involved deciding to treat her harshly as a punishment - if not the instruction would not have been necessary.) If that cannot be explained away, and I don't think it can, then the grounds for the officers searching her so roughly start to look rather shaky to me.[/quote]
Quite.

"Treat her like a terrorist"......."I was concerned for her mental health"

This is run of the mill abuse of power, the people in these institutions have become so acclimatised to it they automatically correct the wrongthink of someone who would question the where humanity is.

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

clearly you find it much easier to believe members of the public make shit up than police officers behave reprehensibly and illegally. Very very naive of you no matter what your actual job is.

Interesting that we have what purports to be a member of the police defending the behaviour of the police in this situation - despite the findings of the tribunal and saying things like "something else must have happened" without a shred of evidence that "something" did. You can see why the women police officers went along with it. Doubt there is a place in the met for you unless you swallow all the koolaid.

And the poster who characterised the assault as sexist "banter"! Am I the only one who thinks women might be a lot safer if the word "banter" was expunged from the language.

Felix125
“I'm not sure if there is an imbalance of power here. She was arrested and so her liberty has been taken from her. If custody believe there is a risk that she may have a concealed item from the information given (or not given) to them they have to make a judgement on whether to do a full search of her.”

They can always ‘say’ they thought she had a concealed item. How can you disprove that woman on this earth MiGHT have a concealed item, including between their legs.

But how likely is it that this young woman randomly arrested, for handing an arrested young person an information card, really had a ‘concealed’ item on her person?

If their ‘judgement’ that they felt they ‘had’ to make was that this woman needed strip searching, and in such manner as though she were a terrorist, then they have very,very poor judgement.

And as for the ‘banter’.

None of all this ‘police officer’ ‘judgement’ ‘concealed’ lingo is anything other than disingenuous under the circumstances.

They just didn’t like this woman and wanted revenge imo.

The police used quite emotive language in the report about me. If you were not witness to the event and had only read the report, you’d have thought I was truly a risk to myself and others…I really wasn’t, but the language used changed everything. I’d been run over by another blue light worker. They all got their story straight pretty quick.

I didn’t want to make a fuss…but they reported that I was uncooperative and obstructive. Instead of reporting that I was being a bit sweary (just been run over) in a normal tone of voice and level of voice - talking to my boyfriend in conversation, never swore at anyone else - in the report I was described as disruptive and agitated. How the story is told changes everything and can seriously affect people’s lives. It nearly had very real social and economic consequences for me.

You just expect officers to tell things how they happened…to trust them. Because when they don’t, and you’re on the wrong side of that - you’ve seriously got your work cut out trying to prove otherwise.

She said they arrested her because she handed a 15 year old a card advising him of his legal rights.
A 15 year old with a knife - should the police put themselves and the public at risk so that random dogooders can stick their oar in during an arrest.
She happened to have one card in her wallet with information on stop and search - yeah right.
She could have complied and given her name and address - seems to me she wanted to be arrested (went limp!).
I agree the police behaviour was inexcusable but I don't know why she was being so difficult - she is partly to blame for what happened.

I wonder how many women experienced something similar but, unlike Duff, didn't have the level of resources that would allow them to pursue this complaint over time to the point where she's been vindicated?

“Whatthechicken

You just expect officers to tell things how they happened…to trust them”

I wish there were recordings of actual words as well as police reports. I was once on a jury and thought the same. A report of what was said and what was actually said can be so different. A third hand account is always something of a translation.

Goodness me that's appalling and terrifying! What on earth was their reasoning to restrain her in such a way and then strip her and basically assault her? She must have been so scared about what would happen next! I hope they all get sacked for this but sadly probably just told off or sent for re training. Such an abuse of power!

@ScrollingLeaves the best bit was the reason they concocted for why I had been run over. They said I was distracted because I’d lifted my top and flashed by breasts at some passing males. I was nearly arrested for a public order offence and nearly lost my job - the emotional impact was massive. It wasn’t a laughing matter for me, but everyone I told laughed (at first) because they knew that I was the most body conscious person ever. The first thing I did after I was run over was to
make sure I was decent. Obviously, on this particular evening the CCTV wasn’t available! If it would have happened to anyone else - I wouldn’t have believed that they would have gone so far to protect a blue light colleague. These things happen, I would never have pursued it, but they made me sound unreliable, unstable and untrustworthy, just in case I did.

@Whatthechicken that is just horrible behaviour on their part and the worst is they probably think themselves into believing it because it is so easy to get away with.

I so hope you are all right. Telling these untruths about you for the record when you would have been in a state of shock for a long time afterwards, must have been profoundly upsetting.💐

@ScrollingLeaves thank you, I’m fine now. Still makes me cross to think about it though. At the time I had a good job, never been in trouble before and have a uni education, I was very respectful of authority. I’d just lost my dad though and didn’t have the strength to challenge it. The pure injustice of it hurt the most, especially when I had never put a foot wrong and these were people that I would have trusted the most…they were police officers!! I felt completely stitched up. So if I couldn’t challenge it, I wonder just how many women are out there that have suffered injustice and for whatever reason can’t stick up for themselves.

I agree the police behaviour was inexcusable but I don't know why she was being so difficult - she is partly to blame for what happened.

And there you have why the police will never be properly reformed without some radical overhaul. The victims of bad policing made them do it doncha know.

What do you say to Whatthechicken (and so sorry whatthechicken for what you went through) - how was SHE partly to blame for what happened her. Do you believe the police that she was flashing her breasts? Does that make her "partly to blame".

I would like an effective, respected and well-paid police force that keeps us all safe. Defending illegal and disgusting behaviour won't get us there.

@Mumoftwoinprimary

I agree. I think Duff sounds like an infuriatingly tedious sodding troublemaker, and she should've left her bloody stupid card in her pocket. I hold absolutely no brief for the police whatsoever - quite the opposite - but I can imagine that it must be hugely irritating to have someone attempting to thrust a card into the hand of a person I'm trying to arrest for a knife crime.

But the whole point is that they're supposed to fucking well rise above it. Because they're the police. And if they let themselves be so easily antagonised into this kind of revolting behaviour, then they're no bloody use as coppers at all. 'Treat her like a terrorist'? What a fucking crew. Useless and dangerous.

Mumoftwoinprimary

It doesn't quite work that way - they are either telling the truth or else its a lie

For example, the assault could have been her pushing the police officers to one side. He defence could have been that she did do this, but it was her intention to walk down the path and the officer was in the way. The court may find that therefore, the intent can not be prove beyond reasonable doubt - so no conviction. So neither party is lying

And you can go on with similar examples - the law is not black & white - that is why there is so much case law & stated cases.

And - we still don't know if the arresting officer was involved in the search in custody and subsequent abusive comments.

We seem to be accusing her of being part of what happened in custody.

And I have said the, language used in custody was not acceptable. You don't search someone like they are a terrorist. You search someone like someone who needs searching - the process is exactly the same. The word 'terrorist' should not have been used.

I agree the police behaviour was inexcusable but I don't know why she was being so difficult - she is partly to blame for what happened.

Jesus H Christ.

So if a prisoner is 'difficult' then they are to blame for police failures? No.

The police are expected to deal with all sorts of the worst behaviour. If they can't handle a woman waving a card at someone then how on earth are they going to manage violent or aggressive situations? This was bullying, plain and simple.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

I wonder how many women experienced something similar but, unlike Duff, didn't have the level of resources that would allow them to pursue this complaint over time to the point where she's been vindicated?

I know quite a few. As for "she shouldn't have given the child the card", what sort of victim blaming bullshit is this? Just last year women were told they should challenge the police!

yes, but not to the point of assaulting & obstructing them

assaulting & obstructing them

Is there any evidence at all of what this 'assault' and 'obstruction' consisted of?

She didn't assault anyone and if handing someone a card with their rights is classed as "obstructive", what kind of challenge is permitted?

@ArabellaScott

assaulting & obstructing them

Is there any evidence at all of what this 'assault' and 'obstruction' consisted of?

That's what she was arrested for. I am assuming she was charged with either or both offences.

If she was sent to court for it, it must have passed the evidential threshold for CPS to take it

As CPS only ever take cases to court that have a good chance of a conviction, i would suggest there was evidence there sufficient to have a case to answer to at court.

@TooBigForMyBoots

She didn't assault anyone and if handing someone a card with their rights is classed as "obstructive", what kind of challenge is permitted?

The allegation was that she assaulted & obstructed a police officer.