Academic strip searched = police complaint and PTSD

Caracus2k said:
. . . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-45439954
Click to expand...
Reading that article, it seems pretty clear that Met. Police Officers chose to humiliate a fairly foolish woman and "teach her a lesson".

However, the Police are not above the law and the judiciary should not condone that sort of misbehaviour.
Dr Duff's lawyer, Lawrence Barker, believes there is a good prospect of the judicial review succeeding.
Click to expand...
Sgt Kurtis Howard will doubtless get promoted regardless.

What is of more concern is that "Dr Duff was later charged with two counts of assaulting a police officer and one charge of obstructing a police officer, but was acquitted of all charges following a trial." This sounds like a deliberate, calculated attempt by the Met. Police to pervert the course of justice in order to further humiliate Dr. Duff.
 
"Konstancja Duff, 25, from Camberwell, was found guilty of criminal damage yesterday at Highbury Magistrates’ Court and received a three-month conditional discharge and a fine for building repairs and legal costs."

Was that also a deliberate, calculated attempt by the Metropolitan Police to pervert the course of justice, or a good reason for a University to assess a staff member's suitability to teach and uphold the good name of a major seat of learning? I am afraid I have to take a jaundiced view of how the University have managed to overlook this staff member's behaviour and wonder if they would have been so magnanimous had her actions been as far to the Right as they have been to the Left? ;)
 
stockhausen said:
Reading that article, it seems pretty clear that Met. Police Officers chose to humiliate a fairly foolish woman and "teach her a lesson".
Click to expand...

UK Police are often lambasted for 'death in custody' figures which include a substatial cohort of individuals who died as a result of self harm or consuming intoxicating substances. So conducting a strip search of someone who is either acting bizarrely and or is refusing to cooperate can have very little to do with trying to "teach someone a lesson" and is far more likely to revolve around police not wanting to face a disciplinary panels after a un searched or insufficiently searched person manages to kill or seriously harm themselves or another person.

So no I don't see that it's pretty clear they acted with intent to humiliate her.

stockhausen said:
However, the Police are not above the law and the judiciary should not condone that sort of misbehaviour..
Click to expand...

The 'judiciary' haven't (yet) considered any misconduct or criminal allegations against the police as a whole or any individual officers hence why Ms Duff is seeking a judicial review. The case against the custody sergeant was reviewed by a disciplinary panel after the IOPC concluded (either on their own or after seeking CPS advice) that there was insufficient evidence pursue a criminal prosecution against any officer.

stockhausen said:
Sgt Kurtis Howard will doubtless get promoted regardless.
Click to expand...

People who don't have disciplinary cases pending or found proven against them should be free to seek promotion or a new post. What a bizzare comment.

stockhausen said:
What is of more concern is that "Dr Duff was later charged with two counts of assaulting a police officer and one charge of obstructing a police officer, but was acquitted of all charges following a trial." This sounds like a deliberate, calculated attempt by the Met. Police to pervert the course of justice in order to further humiliate Dr. Duff.
Click to expand...

Being found not guilty at court doesn't make an arrest unlawful or indicate the prosecution itself was vexatious or malicious.

Personally I think that trying to pass something to or receive something from somone being searched by a police officer having been warned to cease and desist should be enough to be convicted of obstruction. There aren't many details to assist with the assault allegations.
 
It sounds like it was a it more than her simply refusing to give her name. There are plenty of videos on youtube of people being polite but uncooperative with the police.

It doesn't sound like she was particularly calm, but rather she's been belligerent, interfered with a stop and search and then acted rather weird and then engaged in some passive resistance nonsense whereby she's gone limp etc.. I'm not really surprised they worried about whether she was on something, might have had drugs etc..
 
Caracus2k said:
She has been previously convicted for pursuing 'direct action' for social justice in another incident ... Details are in this thread
Click to expand...

I was talking about a conviction in relation to the issue in this thread.

Besides, direct action in regards to social justice is normally celebrated by Universities, so again, I'm not sure why that would lead to her dismissal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At least the publicity she has garnered has left her employment options severely restricted, and probably limited to Left leaning academia where her somewhat specialist subjects are no doubt "celebrated", as you say. Social media is now far more revealing than the average CV to those who want their workforce to be none confrontational with authority and do not wish their reputation to be sullied by employees being unfit for work due to the stress of police confrontations and strip searches on their days off :) It gives me hope that at least some elements of our police forces are still not so cowed by political correctness to allow arrests to be hampered by interference from political agitators.
 
Caracus2k said:
UK Police are often lambasted for 'death in custody' figures which include a substatial cohort of individuals who died as a result of self harm or consuming intoxicating substances. . . . .
Click to expand...
And I am 100% sure that strip searching everyone who comes into contact with the Met. Police will ensure that "deaths in custody" will be a thing of the past - or not.

Meanwhile, don't get burgled because the Met. Police are too busy strip searching busybodies to be bothered to get involved.
 
stockhausen said:
And I am 100% sure that strip searching everyone who comes into contact with the Met. Police will ensure that "deaths in custody" will be a thing of the past - or not.

Meanwhile, don't get burgled because the Met. Police are too busy strip searching busybodies to be bothered to get involved.
Click to expand...

You're very sure about things you've made up. That must be comforting.

If I went up to an armed person the police were searching and either handed that person something or took something from them or both, then refused to engage with the police at all, pretended to collapse and was completely unresponsive when people tried reasonably to assess my medical situation, I would expect them to search me. I would be giving them every reason to think it was possible that I was a risk to myself and/or others and concealing something. Probably drugs (which would be the most likely explanation for the bizarre behaviour) and possibly a weapon (perhaps handed to me by the armed person I exchanged something with).

Nobody is advocating searching everyone who comes into contact with the Met police. Only those people there's a reason to search. Nobody is arguing that doing so would ensure that deaths in custody would be completely prevented, only that doing so would prevent some deaths in custody. Which it would and does.
 
Angilion said:
You're very sure about things you've made up. That must be comforting.

If I went up to an armed person the police were searching . . .
Click to expand...
Do you have reason to believe that Dr. Duff even suspected that the person being searched by the Met. Police was armed?
No, that is something you've just made up. That must be comforting.
In fact pretty much everything you have posted above is just made up in a futile attempt to justify the inexcusable bullying by the arrogant Met. Police.

Meanwhile, don't get burgled because the Met. Police are too busy strip searching lippy busybodies to be bothered to get involved - but I guess that's OK with you?
 
stockhausen said:
Do you have reason to believe that Dr. Duff even suspected that the person being searched by the Met. Police was armed?
Click to expand...

A bit of a weird thing to say? She interfered during an arrest of an armed man. It doesn't matter if she knew he was armed. The police shouldn't give members of the public the benefit of the doubt because they don't know the full facts of an ongoing arrest/ operation? Members of the public should let the police get on with their jobs...

Kind of similar to all the SJWs protesting against the deportation of that innocent man away from his family. (Read rapist)
 
Don't comply with police and then cry when they get rough, its a classic, plenty of vids on youtube of idiots get pulled over then refusing to give any details whatsoever making the encounter ten times harder than it could be.

She was probably never told "no" when she was a kid.
 
Why does she have to comply?

People have rights, its important people A)know these rights and B) these are respected. She should not have been strip searched
 
omnomnom said:
Why does she have to comply?

People have rights, its important people A)know these rights and B) these are respected. She should not have been strip searched
Click to expand...

Well she doesn't have to comply... but don't then complain when the police detain you for interfering during an arrest of an armed man. Then strip search you due to your erratic behaviour.

Can't have it both ways.
 
balky12 said:
. . . She interfered during an arrest of an armed man. . . .
Click to expand...
Do you have reason to believe that Dr. Duff even suspected that the person being searched by the Met. Police was armed?

balky12 said:
. . . It doesn't matter if she knew he was armed. . . .
Click to expand...
Doesn't it? Was the Met. Police defence that she interfered during the arrest of an armed youth?

Strip searching her had nothing to do with her "interference" during the arrest of a young black man subsequently found to be in possession of a knife - even the Met. Police aren't stupid to offer that as a defence.
 
stockhausen said:
Do you have reason to believe that Dr. Duff even suspected that the person being searched by the Met. Police was armed?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your hang up on this aspect? It doesn't matter if she knew he was armed or not. He was.

Why should the police give the benefit of the doubt to a member of the public who had no reason to be inteferring?

'Oh sorry miss, you could quite easily see we were arresting someone, and we also told you to go away several times and I know we had to forcibly remove you, but because you wasn't aware he was in fact armed we are going to excuse you for your disruptive behaviour'
 
omnomnom said:
Why does she have to comply?

People have rights, its important people A)know these rights and B) these are respected. She should not have been strip searched
Click to expand...

People also have a duty of care. The police have a duty of care to protect the public from armed people. The police also have a duty of care to protect people from themselves. One way they do this is to ensure people who display potentially erratic behaviour have no means to harm themselves.

They did both of these things that day by arresting an armed man despite the interference of said strange woman. They also then protected said strange woman from herself as her behaviour clearly wasn't normal.
 
woman sounds like a throbber of the highest order,

custody sergeant sounds like he's short of time and patience and done what he needed to do to progress her detention and get her out his hair and get on with his day

right or wrong who knows.


one for the service officers though?

strip searches do they have to be performed by officers of the same sex?

if for example a suspect(male) requested a couple of WPCs would this be complied with?
asking for a friend, /////starts planning unsuccessful crime spree/////
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom