Just a few rotten eggs?

hurfdurf

hurfdurf

hurfdurf

Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
10,314
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23518189

London Police strip a woman naked without consent and with no legal justification for doing so, completely ignoring the regulations in place that stipulate how a strip search should be carried out (4 men and 1 female officer stripped and searched her), they also filmed it and broadcast it into their office.

They then refused to log the fact she had been strip searched and tried to bully her into not making a complaint about it.

The woman complained about her treatment to the Met, which carried out its own investigation and nothing was done.

The IPCC is now involved after the woman was forced to escalate the complaint, I wonder what the consequences, if any, there will be?

The defense from Police officers is that they themselves never witness such abuse. Here we have 5 officers all implicit in such disgraceful abuse, and I wonder if they too would say they never "witness such things".
 
hurfdurf said:
they also filmed it and broadcast it into their office.
Click to expand...

There's a Daily Mail headline right there, that's not even what the article says.
The CCTV from all cells will be shown on a monitor at the custody desk as a matter of course.
That's not to say I agree with her treatment but lets not go just making things up.
 
Based on what little information there is, it sounds like its being blown out of proportion. They make the claim that they breached rules on same sex searches, yet it then says:

The 22-year-old was searched by one female and four males "without adequate justification", the IPCC said.

So that seems to suggest otherwise.

Having watched many of the Police shows you see on television, if they are dealing with drunk and dangerous people, they often have to use quite a few officers in the cells to deal with them, especially if they think they may have drugs or weapons. So it may simply have just not been practical or possible to have only women holding her down.

I'm sure the truth will be fully exposed, but I'm sure they had a reason and lets face it the woman was heavily intoxicated and was under arrest, so hardly devoid of a reason for being in a cell.
 
It's shocking and wrong that she was treated this way, it's a blatent breach of not only force policies but of laws, and people should, and I imagine will lose their jobs and probably be prosecuted for it.

tom_e said:
There's a Daily Mail headline right there, that's not even what the article says.
The CCTV from all cells will be shown on a monitor at the custody desk as a matter of course.
That's not to say I agree with her treatment but lets not go just making things up.
Click to expand...

There's also nothing in the article about anyone trying "to bully her into not making a complaint about it.". That won't stop hurfdurf using it to accuse the police as a whole of all kinds of things though will it.
 
andi said:
There's also nothing in the article about anyone trying "to bully her into not making a complaint about it.". That won't stop hurfdurf using it to accuse the police as a whole of all kinds of things though will it.
Click to expand...

How long before someone gets branded a "Police brutality apologist"?
 
I really do not like the UK Police. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with the idiot wannabe councilors anymore. I've never once had an issue with the US Police Force. Never pulled for no reason and been given a lecture on how to run my life.
 
andi said:
It's shocking and wrong that she was treated this way, it's a blatent breach of not only force policies but of laws, and people should, and I imagine will lose their jobs and probably be prosecuted for it.



There's also nothing in the article about anyone trying "to bully her into not making a complaint about it.". That won't stop hurfdurf using it to accuse the police as a whole of all kinds of things though will it.
Click to expand...

Rape apologist. A hate u. :mad:
 
Hopefully those responsible get reprimanded & new processes are put in place to prevent it from happening again.

The regulations for this kind of thing if I recall correctly are already very clear & it's a clear breach of process & of due care.

Assuming the details in the article are all correct it's a pretty disgusting way to treat somebody.
 
thedoc46 said:
I really do not like the UK Police. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with the idiot wannabe councilors anymore. I've never once had an issue with the US Police Force. Never pulled for no reason and been given a lecture on how to run my life.
Click to expand...

US police are sound...if you're white.
 
thedoc46 said:
I really do not like the UK Police. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with the idiot wannabe councilors anymore. I've never once had an issue with the US Police Force. Never pulled for no reason and been given a lecture on how to run my life.
Click to expand...

Neither have I in the UK. Not sure why you think police officers want to become members of the local council either.

In any case, it's just another hurfdurf thread.
 
hurfdurf said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23518189

London Police strip a woman naked without consent and with no legal justification for doing so, completely ignoring the regulations in place that stipulate how a strip search should be carried out (4 men and 1 female officer stripped and searched her), they also filmed it and broadcast it into their office.

They then refused to log the fact she had been strip searched and tried to bully her into not making a complaint about it.

The woman complained about her treatment to the Met, which carried out its own investigation and nothing was done.

The IPCC is now involved after the woman was forced to escalate the complaint, I wonder what the consequences, if any, there will be?

The defense from Police officers is that they themselves never witness such abuse. Here we have 5 officers all implicit in such disgraceful abuse, and I wonder if they too would say they never "witness such things".
Click to expand...

You're a funny guy :)

You have no problem at all with prostitution and tax evasion, however when it comes to law enforcement your morals appear to be pearly white :)
 
The media never tells it how it is, especially when the police are involved, we haven't all the facts, and why was she in the position she was in to be strip searched anyway.

We're such a compensation culture now that at any given opportunity, no matter how small, people will complain because they feel they're owed something.

The chances are she was acting irrationally, going from being "up and down" in close succession and in turn this can lead to being violent; therefore the more officers the merrier in this situation as this will help reduce the chance of her hurting herself, or others.

The crap you've spouted about it being filmed and broadcast to an office is a load of old trollop; as said above, CCTV operates in all cells for the safety of officers and detainees alike, and is of course viewable by the custody suite.

You can bet your buck that if anything untoward was happening it wouldn't have been on CCTV as they can be turned off. Furthermore, she may have consented to male officers being there at the time, which is then justifiable.

I would further hazard a guess that due to police numbers being so low, and that there aren't as many female officers as males, that for her safety they were required to be there in order to assist a potentially volatile female.

However, I'm not saying the officers did right anyway; and only an investigation will prove the contrary.

Oh and as for the comment from the BBC "It is claimed that the other officer failed to investigate her claim that her drink was spiked at the club." - Oldest excuse in the book for those under the influence, very hard to investigate as CCTV is often crud in nightclubs/pubs. I'm loathe to believe she's fully innocent here.
 
Last edited:
andi said:
There's also nothing in the article about anyone trying "to bully her into not making a complaint about it.". That won't stop hurfdurf using it to accuse the police as a whole of all kinds of things though will it.
Click to expand...

Uh, yes it does.

One is accused of potentially discouraging the woman from getting legal advice by implying that she would have to stay at the police station for longer if she did so.
Click to expand...
 
hurfdurf said:
Uh, yes it does.
Click to expand...

Uh, legal advice is different to a complaint.

* To elaborate on that, every detainee whom enters custody is entitled to free, independent legal advise from a solicitor, prior to an interview, and to establish themselves should they dispute any charge that may be brought forward.

This involved the custody sergeant arranging for a solicitor to attend, which can take hours for them to arrive even though they're on call.

If she wanted this legal advice, she would have been remanded in custody, however if she wanted to leave sooner without this advice that's her decision.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
Uh, yes it does.
Click to expand...

That reads more as "If we have to call the duty solicitor down here then you're going to be hanging around", it doesn't sound like "If you want to make a complaint we're going to keep you locked up for a while"
 
Sounds like the system is functioning as it should, members of the police force do something that breaches regulations, the IPCC investigates and judges those responsible were in the wrong and should be punished.

Like the title, there will always be bad eggs in any organisation. However, this could well have been a case that there weren't enough female officers present and decision had to be made, do you search her for her own safety against regulations and face the consequences or decide to not break regulations and run the risk that she may have harmful narcotics on her person.

The police do a tough job under massive pressure, sometimes mistakes will be made, they're only human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom