@sylvandweller
"Drugs are not a justification for this kind of humiliation either."
I strongly disagree. If there's another kid in your kid's class, or hanging out with him outside the school, and giving your kid drugs, you'd want that kid stopped. Or should do. And unless you want police to be able to charge people or take action without evidence, you're going to have to search the kid. And the drugs may not just be weed (I still think that's something you shouldn't want given to your kids), it could be anything. 110 of these cases across a population of 9 million over six years. This article is giving a very loaded take on things.
I think if there was a study that was this shoddy and biased and it was about the victimisation of trans women in female spaces, people would (rightly) ask questions about the methodology.
@aweegc
"The police will definitely find crime wherever they look. They seem more interested in certain types of communities than others though. Maybeit's not race related (I disagree), but a persons socioeconomic background plays a part and in poorer inner city communities in London, there are higher numbers of black girls (and people) living. If they focussed only on wealthy areas, I bet they could change the ethnicity of those they stop and search overnight."
Well yes, if police only searched in areas where it was overwhelmingly White, then they would overwhelmingly being stopping White people. I'm not really seeing the relevance of this obviously true statement. If it's meant to suggest that policing should be evenly distributed across the whole of London I strongly disagree. Police resource is very finite and should be focused on areas where there is the most crime. If that correlates with ethnicity then that may be something you want to address but removing policing from high-crime areas I'm pretty sure is not the answer.
@sylvandweller
"And couldn't sniffer dogs be used to check for drugs?"
@Felix125 already covered the practicalities very well, but I'll add something more fundamental still - "the dog barked at him" isn't sufficient evidence in court. Lets say a drug sniffer dog did start yapping at a person you'd stopped, the next step still has to be searching the person.
@PinkFrogss
"For all the people trying to justify it - how do you justify it being specifically girls?"
I first have to say that pointing out misleading headlines and weasel wording isn't justifying anything. It's saying "this is biased and they've concealed the methodology used". Things like comparing races in cases going forward is such an obvious thing to include that it's very suspicious they hid it. I secondly have to point out that it isn't specifically girls. The article authors simply didn't bother to report on boys who were strip searched. Again, suspicious that they omit such an easy figure to report on, leading me to suspect that boys were strip searched more than girls.