Academic strip searched = police complaint and PTSD

Political activist gets on the wrong side of the law again by interfering with a legitimate stop and search then acts like the injured party when she behaves in such a way as to create concern over her mental / physical state and whether she may be at risk or a risk to others.

There are so many scenarios that could have played out where people would be in uproar if she hadn't of been strip searched.

Lets not forget the police dont know her from Adam but in this situation are essentially responsible for her safety and care and that of their colleagues. There are plenty of people that behave the way she did (limp and unresponsive) who have concealed weapons / drugs and are in mental distress and a risk to themselves.
 
But since she was acquitted by the court for obstruction and assault, she ultimately did nothing wrong? I'm not criticising the Police arresting her in the first place, they have wide powers to do that anyway and it's always just "suspicion of" - though it's funny the same people on her saying how "she deserved it", mainly because she was a "Liberal" *spit* are the same ones who were crying tears about the police overstepping the mark when they arrested Saint Tommy! No double standards there then ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reason for the search put down as "refusing to give her name" - which isn't a justification, but it was only later at court/hearing that their laywer expanding on that to cite "mental health reasons" which sounds to me like moving the goal posts to cover ones arse.

Now the weapon argument is nonsense, even as Burnsey said a pat down and metal detector would be sufficient, drugs yea that could require a search, but then I would like to know how many strip searches are done of people arrested for actually having drugs on them before being locked in a cell - as they could easily have more stashed on them. Or how many people who are limp or unresponsive are strip searched rather than just searching through the clothing.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
But since she was acquitted by the court for obstruction and assault, she ultimately did nothing wrong? I'm not criticising the Police arresting her in the first place, they have wide powers to do that anyway and it's always just "suspicion of" - though it's funny the same people on her saying how "she deserved it", mainly because she was a "Liberal" *spit* are the same ones who were crying tears about the police overstepping the mark when they arrested Saint Tommy! No double standars there then ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reason for the search put down as "refusing to give her name" - which isn't a justification, but it was only later at court/hearing that their laywer expanding on that to cite "mental health reasons" which sounds to me like moving the goal posts to cover ones arse.

Now the weapon argument is nonsense, even as Burnsey said a pat down and metal detector would be sufficient, drugs yea that could require a search, but then I would like to know how many strip searches are done of people arrested for actually having drugs on them before being locked in a cell - as they could easily have more stashed on them.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I suppose in an ever litigious society arse covering is an unfortunate requirement.

The woman was behaving strangeley - the custody sergeant didnt know if she was mentally ill or on drugs. Whilst they didnt arrest her for a suspected drug offence her latter behaviour was clearly of concern. If they didnt search her and it later transpired she died from a drug oversose from drugs she had concealed about her person then the police would be for the high jump.

Its a bit like being stuck between a rock.and a hard place. Damned if you do and damned if you dont.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
I agree with you. I suppose in an ever litigious society arse covering is an unfortunate requirement.

The woman was behaving strangeley - the custody sergeant didnt know if she was mentally ill or on drugs. Whilst they didnt arrest her for a suspected drug offence her latter behaviour was clearly of concern. If they didnt search her and it later transpired she died from a drug oversose from drugs she had concealed about her person then the police would be for the high jump.

Its a bit like being stuck between a rock.and a hard place. Damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Click to expand...

Which is a perfectly reasonable version of events, but so is the Sergeant did just did it for a power trip.

One of my ex-bosses used to be a police sergeant, nasty corrupt piece of work he was, and he used to gloat about they enjoyed roughing up people and how he enjoyed hurting people : one example being at weekend football matches where ejecting people from the ground they would delight in carrying them out by arm & leg whilst opening all the swing doors with their head. Or when arresting someone making sure you bent that arm back until they squealed.

Then again, he used to deal in animal crush videos as well, so he was a sick *******, didn't stopping him going throughout his police career and retiring with his pension, so he was never held accountable.
 
Freakbro said:
Now the weapon argument is nonsense, even as Burnsey said a pat down and metal detector would be sufficient, drugs yea that could require a search
Click to expand...

That's not quite what I said. What I said was that there needed to be justification for wanting a more in depth search. People can and do hide things like razor blades under foreskins and in orifices.
 
stockhausen said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don’t wish to take sides here, although I lean a little toward the “she brought it on herself” view, but I think that you’re pushing the envelope a tad, with your assertion that her breasts and genitals were “fondled”.
In the link, Ms. Duff alleges that “her breasts and genitals were touched” by officers, fondled is a bit of a stretch from touched.
On the assumption that her strip search was conducted by female officers, perhaps you feel that she was maybe one step away from lesbian rape, (if there is such a thing.)
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That's not quite what I said. What I said was that there needed to be justification for wanting a more in depth search. People can and do hide things like razor blades under foreskins and in orifices.
Click to expand...

Well yes, but I was taking it in this context and I don't think in this situation there would be much justification for suspicion that she had a razor blade hidden in an orifice
 
Freakbro said:
Well yes, but I was taking it in this context and I don't think in this situation there would be much justification for suspicion that she had a razor blade hidden in an orifice
Click to expand...

Her unwillingness to engage with officers would probably have led to them to not wanting to take the chance, especially if it's more common in London. Their jobs are on the line if she harms herself in custody too.
 
So exercising your right to stay silent is now grounds to be violently strip searched because the poilice are overly paranoid about lawsuits?
 
mmj_uk said:
So exercising your right to stay silent is now grounds to be violently strip searched because the poilice are overly paranoid about lawsuits?
Click to expand...

It's probably not just being silent, but in any case, you call it a lawsuit, I call it gross misconduct and potential criminal negligence charges. Custody officers have every incentive to be very risk averse.
 
Jean-F said:
I don’t wish to take sides here, although I lean a little toward the “she brought it on herself” view, but I think that you’re pushing the envelope a tad, with your assertion that her breasts and genitals were “fondled”.
In the link, Ms. Duff alleges that “her breasts and genitals were touched” by officers, fondled is a bit of a stretch from touched.
On the assumption that her strip search was conducted by female officers, perhaps you feel that she was maybe one step away from lesbian rape, (if there is such a thing.)
Click to expand...

Trollhausen is trying to use words like "fondled" to conjure up images in people's heads that the police staff and officers are perverse and sexually assaulted her. Note that not even the complainant used the word "fondled" which, goes without saying, is a far cry away from being touched during a search.
 
She is a complete idiot.

Refusing to give your name to the police is just plain disrespect. They have a hard enough and risky job as it is, why make it even more harder by being stubborn and trying to prove a moral point, instead of helping them.
 
Surely this is what she is fighting for though, equality right?

If they arrested the guy, but not her for interfering with the arrest. Wouldn't that be prejudice? :p
 
She's an idiot. When I was arrested as a youngster for being involved in a fight they gave me a newspaper and a drink in my cell then let me go home after a quick interview, just be polite and compliant.
 
Freakbro said:
But since she was acquitted by the court for obstruction and assault, she ultimately did nothing wrong? I'm not criticising the Police arresting her in the first place, they have wide powers to do that anyway and it's always just "suspicion of" - though it's funny the same people on her saying how "she deserved it", mainly because she was a "Liberal" *spit* are the same ones who were crying tears about the police overstepping the mark when they arrested Saint Tommy! No double standards there then ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the reason for the search put down as "refusing to give her name" - which isn't a justification, but it was only later at court/hearing that their laywer expanding on that to cite "mental health reasons" which sounds to me like moving the goal posts to cover ones arse.

Now the weapon argument is nonsense, even as Burnsey said a pat down and metal detector would be sufficient, drugs yea that could require a search, but then I would like to know how many strip searches are done of people arrested for actually having drugs on them before being locked in a cell - as they could easily have more stashed on them. Or how many people who are limp or unresponsive are strip searched rather than just searching through the clothing.
Click to expand...


They spent ages sat down trying to talk to her which she ignored saying on the ground so they carried her into a cell.

At that point while she's in there she is effectivly unsupervised.

You csnt just leave an unsupervised person without checking they don't have anything.

A pat down can miss a huge amount of stuff, or instance razor blades theyr e soft and flexible can be hidden damn near anywhere and you won't find them in a pat down, if you wrap it you can put a scalpel blade between your toes and comfortably walk around without even noticing its there.


Without a strip search you'd never find it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom