Soldato
It comes down to 3 things, good manners , common sense, and strategy.
Clearly she has gone against them all.
Academic strip searched = police complaint and PTSD
It comes down to 3 things, good manners , common sense, and strategy.
Clearly she has gone against them all.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
I think the police do take an instant dislike to anyone who doesn't bow down to them, anyone who doesn't instantly comply 100% or attempts to insist on their rights being respected or questions potentially unlawful behavior by the police.
Also i imagine they don't like people knowing their rights, so someone handing out legal advice would make their job harder, that probably didn't help.
Who can say if they really believed she was a risk or they just got p'd off and thought they would make her life difficult in return
Also i imagine they don't like people knowing their rights, so someone handing out legal advice would make their job harder, that probably didn't help.
Who can say if they really believed she was a risk or they just got p'd off and thought they would make her life difficult in return
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
I can see how she comes across as maybe a snow flake SJW claiming PTSD for the search - although having said that sexual assault is taken more seriously now and definition widening or more minor incidents taken more seriously
For example touching a women over their clothing could be sexual assault now - so holding them down, cutting their clothes off and inserting fingers into every orifice would definitely qualify - but the police are allowed to do this for "reasons" if they deem it necessary.
so maybe PTSD isn't a totally unreasonable reaction - if this was a sex offender doing the exact same thing people would support her PTSD 100% i imagine.
Or maybe theyr e worried that while thwyre distracted with this idiot and turn hiet backs the guy they've just taken a 6" knife from pulls another one out and stabs them in the back.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 1,073
There is a balance to be struck -
Between police serving the public - taking personal risk to police by consent, treat the public with respect and dignity etc
vs.
The more extreme American model when police protect themselves above all else, treat people like crap and shoot first ask questions later etc
Ps. Also was a programme on the radio i heard a few days ago saying that most young kids with knives in london are carrying them out of fear rather than with any intent to attack anyone
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,638
I would rather we have the freedom for them to show their bigotry than to deny that freedom and have them hide their views behind closed doors where it could manifest into something more dangerous than simply going to protest and peacefully resisting police
Yes the woman may be a **** but that's no reason to be humiliated by being stripped naked just because she peacefully won't do what somebody in authority says
Surely you have better stories to read in your ivory tower
Man of Honour
Or maybe they're not magically aware that the item she just passed to him isn't a weapon. Or that he didn't pass her a weapon so it wouldn't found on him. Or drugs, for the same reason.
I think it always will manifest into something more dangerous than that, anyway. In any case, I said that I would tolerate it but not give it privileged status, not have it above the law.
Agreed, but that's only one spin on what happened.
If someone can freely interfere in a legal search and exchange items with the person being searched without being arrested, legal searches become useless.
If someone can be arrested and held in a police cell without being searched, people will die. Either they will kill themselves or they will kill someone else. Or both. That's especially likely with someone who is behaving oddly and may have mental health issues or be drugged up. It's also not unheard of for a person to swallow drugs they have on them when arrested in order to avoid the drugs being found. There will be deaths.
What alternative do you propose?
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,666
I would agree, but it was a card with the stop and search rules, not a large box/cloth bag to conceal weapons and there she was being watched by police. Even the best slight of hand magician would struggle to make a weapon dissapear in full view of 2 police officers.
Police officers are held to a high standard because of the authority that they hold. Everything they do needs to be justified. Similarly I’m a surgeon and we have to make decisions about performing intimate exams when patients are unconscious , intoxicated, mental health or learning disabilities. In the emergency situation they are taken in the persons best interests, but they have to be justified.
Strip searches and intimate exams by police are there for a reason, but their use as a humiliation or punishment are clear. If it was used for this purpose then in on charge the officer authorising the search should lose his job as would any clinician who performed unnecessary examinations without reason or consent for the same purpose. We need to wait for the police review as they will have the full details before making bold statements either way.
*edit for awkward typo on phone*
Last edited:
Associate
Being a police officer is a crap job and we're lucky as a society that there are enough people willing to take on the role without constantly undermining them.
Soldato
Having a crap job isn't an excuse to go on a power trip on anyone who doesn't immediately bend the knee.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Why do people insist in giving such broad assertions for over 100k people? People treat the Police like an amorphous blob rather than a service of individuals.
Genuinely curious: where do you get this perception from? Personal interactions with the Police? TV? Rumour from friends and family?
it's an excuse for someone who interferes w/ official business and then continues to be a ****, especially when that official business involves someone who's been found to be carrying weapons.
Soldato
Sounds to me like you need to read the article and particularly the summing up comments made by the Chairman of the misconduct hearing:
Chairman said:
Chairman said:
Andddd finally:
Chairman said:
OMG DA POLIEC MUST AV BEEN ON SUM MASSIF POWA TRIP! LOOK AT DEM CROUCHING DOWN TO HER LEVEL TRYING TO SPEAK TO IN A NON THREATENING MANNER LIKE A HOOMAN BEING AND GET HER TO COOPERATE WHILST SHE DISPLAYS BIZARE BEHAVIOR AND GOS LIMP FOR 15MINS - WHAT ANIMALS DOS COPPAS ARE!
This is exactly why trial by press/social media is a mind numbing experience. Too many people, with too many axes to grind, with too many opinions about something they know little to nothing about. This is why body worn videos are one of the best things police have ever had and are essential in this modern age - otherwise known as "The Age of the Stupid".
Last edited:
Soldato
Completely and utterly untrue. Unfortunately, you get a lot of nutters who claim to "know their rights" and will argue until the cows come home about these fictitious rights - but you rarely meet someone who does genuinely know their rights, or if they do know their rights, feel like they have to stop the officer from what they are doing because they are contravening their rights.
Can we just get one thing straight - she didn't just walk up to this kid and give him a piece of paper with his stop and search rights on it. She made an absolute nuisance of herself. She obviously doesn't know her rights at all because if she did she would know that she has no right to interfere with a lawful stop search and attempt to mediate(!?) between the police and a lad with a 6 inch knife still stuffed in his sock.
She had also gone up to the lad and tried to give him a piece of paper produced by The Green and Black Organisation specifically aimed to those arrested at protests! Nothing to do with stop search! A cynic might say that she was looking for *any* excuse to interfere in some misguided attempt to make her feel like a brave civil rights advocate - and when she saw a black lad getting searched by the police - she pounced on her chance to feel high and mighty.
She was a very real risk on the street - her interference and distraction of the police officers dealing with someone with a big knife in their sock could have caused the police, the lad or her to get seriously injured or killed. Her behaviour was so much of a nuisance that they felt that they had to arrest her for it. I imagine the "assault on police" was very minor, probably a push or something whilst attempting to interfere.
When she got to the police station she went limp for 15 minutes on the van floor, showed some truly bizarre behaviour and lay on the floor doing nothing. It's not unreasonable to think that she may have been, and probably still is, mentally unstable and/or on drugs and concealing drugs about her person.
Last edited:
Surely you jest, their first single, “Pushing the Putsch” went to # 2 in 1933,
their 1939 debut album, ”Białystok Blitz”, then rocked all of Europe.
They faded for a bit in 1943-1944, then their comeback album, in 1944-45,
“Swansong in The Ardennes” sadly proved to be prescient, but their final single,
“Trouble in The Rubble” sadly saw their demise.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It is my understanding that she offered a 15 year old boy a "legal advice card" (probably quite unnecessarily) and then acted in an incredibly silly way.
However, that doesn't really seem like a reason to strip her, rip out her earrings, tie her feet together and fondle her breasts and genitals while pretending to search her - that does seem to be "cruel punishment" although it may not be unusual with the Metropolitan Police?
Ah, the Police thought that she might have "mental health problems" - that explains it - on the other hand, why not then invite her to join the Met where she would fit right in?
Soldato
lol, you put too much thought and effort into that old boy!! well done though.
Soldato
I should have stopped reading when you wrote "it is my understanding...". Saying "it is my understanding..." is just a way of deliberately misinterpreting and creating misleading facts which ....low and behold....you have done. All the while whilst operating under the protection that if someone calls you out on it, you can just say "oh but that was just my understanding of it".
There was no need for you to have a shakey "understanding" of the facts. There are plenty of resources to draw upon in this thread alone, let alone if you searched for your own, so that you could have had a good knowledge of what had occurred and not have to worry about looking like a fool with "a (worryingly imprecise) understanding".
Last edited: