The cops that essentially abused that girl need to be named publicly.
UK Policing
- Thread starter Sara125
- Start date
That would be a gross invasion of their privacy.
Everything about the story is disgraceful.
Strip search because someone smelt weed?
The House of Commons has a cocaine problem - apparently every bathroom tests positive. Let's start searching MPs and civil servants then.
4 police attending the school in response?
Where's the community policing or the proportionate response in that?
Next the action of every adult aware of what was proposed and what was going on, and just let it happen. How can they be considered safe to be near kids?
As far as we can tell - no one has been charged with any offence, or sacked or suspended or even reprimanded over it. So presumably this was all legal - which is extraordinary.
Ultimately though, the question is why did they think (correctly it seems) that they could get away with it? I get some of the media's nervousness around the subject even now - they're squeamish, well so am I, but that's a cop out.
Racism plays into every layer of the story. So does that sense that she's not part of that lucky elite that can call lawyers, contacts in the press, or even MPs to get an instant slap back at the people involved.
Then you kind of tumble into the vague hope that maybe it was just a one off error and read this:
"How many of those are children? Look to Hackney again. According to the child safeguarding review, in 2020/21 in the central east basic command unit of the Met (which covers Hackney), 25 children under the age of 18 were strip-searched (or “further searched”) to use Met police terminology). Most of the searches (88%) were negative. And only two of the children searched were white."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...black-girl-school-east-london-racism-misogyny
Sickening stuff.
Strip search because someone smelt weed?
The House of Commons has a cocaine problem - apparently every bathroom tests positive. Let's start searching MPs and civil servants then.
4 police attending the school in response?
Where's the community policing or the proportionate response in that?
Next the action of every adult aware of what was proposed and what was going on, and just let it happen. How can they be considered safe to be near kids?
As far as we can tell - no one has been charged with any offence, or sacked or suspended or even reprimanded over it. So presumably this was all legal - which is extraordinary.
Ultimately though, the question is why did they think (correctly it seems) that they could get away with it? I get some of the media's nervousness around the subject even now - they're squeamish, well so am I, but that's a cop out.
Racism plays into every layer of the story. So does that sense that she's not part of that lucky elite that can call lawyers, contacts in the press, or even MPs to get an instant slap back at the people involved.
Then you kind of tumble into the vague hope that maybe it was just a one off error and read this:
"How many of those are children? Look to Hackney again. According to the child safeguarding review, in 2020/21 in the central east basic command unit of the Met (which covers Hackney), 25 children under the age of 18 were strip-searched (or “further searched”) to use Met police terminology). Most of the searches (88%) were negative. And only two of the children searched were white."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...black-girl-school-east-london-racism-misogyny
Sickening stuff.
Are you guys telling me that's the end of the matter, nothing will be done?
There's going to be protests in East London, i saw it on twitter.
Apparently the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) are coming to the end of their case review and will be publishing a report and recommendations shortly.
The complaint was referred to them in May 2021. The incident itself was in 2020. Hopefully, there's enough media attention now to encourage the IOPC to do more than produce a few platitudes about training.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-police-strip-search-girl-hackney-b2037399.html
Personally, I'm not sure the word 'Independent' applies to the IOPC. I'm also not sure why their incident investigations take so long.
I find the information on this website to be shocking. If the numbers of folk dying were police officers there'd be uproar...
https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody
I find the information on this website to be shocking. If the numbers of folk dying were police officers there'd be uproar...
https://www.inquest.org.uk/deaths-in-police-custody
Daniel Morgan: Met Police approach to tackling corruption is flawed, watchdog finds https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60832186
It’s no wonder the MET officers rallied around Cressida Dick, she clearly had little interest in accountability and tackling corruption within the force.
It’s a bit like the United players being upset at Solskjaer leaving. He was doing a fecking terrible job but he let them all get away with whatever they want so it suited them just fine.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's blazing outside, why's he wearing a coat?
Didn't realise wearing a coat was a criminal offence these day.
Man’s not hot?
That's a fecking joke. I had my jacket with me because it was cold this morning when I left.
it is if your black apparently.
I don’t think he was detained for wearing a coat.
So, once during an incredible heatwave in Toronto, I was walking home from work, sweating buckets and dying in the mid-30s heat and humidity.
As I was walking along I went past a family of SE Asians wearing fleece jackets. I was initially amazed but then considered that maybe they were used to 40 or 50 degree heat and this might be a little cool for them.
Ended up experiencing the same myself after returning from a business trip to Barbados. 34 degrees every day for a week made 25 feel cold enough to wear a track jacket for a few days after I got back.
So yeah, white cops from the UK might think the weather's lovely but someone with Caribbean or African roots might find it a bit chilly.
As I was walking along I went past a family of SE Asians wearing fleece jackets. I was initially amazed but then considered that maybe they were used to 40 or 50 degree heat and this might be a little cool for them.
Ended up experiencing the same myself after returning from a business trip to Barbados. 34 degrees every day for a week made 25 feel cold enough to wear a track jacket for a few days after I got back.
So yeah, white cops from the UK might think the weather's lovely but someone with Caribbean or African roots might find it a bit chilly.
Last edited:
What was it for then?
They literally say that they’re detaining him because he’s wearing a coat and it’s nice out.
Why do you think they're detaining him?
The danger of simply following little snippets of online videos.
It appears they are explaining grounds to have stopped him (there may be more but we don’t see the lead up and afterwards).
And if you’re looking at stop search powers wearing particular clothing may well be one thing you consider as a contributing factor. Obviously down to the officer to rationalise it (and I would expect more than just that) but it’s not a sensationalist as made out.
A Scotland Yard spokesman confirmed the man in Croydon had been stopped because of the location, which they said was ‘well-known for drug dealing’, and the fact he was ‘wearing several layers of clothing despite the warm weather’.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/25/met-...wearing-jacket-despite-warm-weather-16344702/
They stopped him because he’s black so they figured he’s a drug dealer.
Thanks for clearing that up then
PS both location and other factors such a clothing can be used as grounds to stop search
So we have to monitor our clothing and where we walk to not get pulled?
It must be nice to walk and dress in your own fashion. Maybe I'm too dusky. Can't take a short cut, can't dress for a cold morning then mild afternoon. The law is an arse.
As I say I’m just explaining. Plenty of people don’t like stop search legislation and believe it’s draconian but the power itself comes under intense scrutiny when used. Encounters go before independent scrutiny panels made up by members of local community and I think pretty much every force requires the use of body worn video to document.
If a man can be detained for not giving an acceptable answer for their clothing, the powers are too strong. If the scrutiny allows such detentions, the scrutiny is too weak. Just because you can use the words "power" and "scrutiny", doesn't make that detention not a joke.
You’re excusing not explaining. You’ve got no more to go off than everyone else yet you were criticising people drawing conclusions a moment ago.
Just because you’re a copper doesn’t mean have to try and justify everything you see.
If a lad can be stopped and detained just because he’s got the nerve to wear a coat then it’s fecked up (and in this case pretty clearly racist) no matter how it’s dressed up.
It’s no wonder a formal complaint has been made.
The lack of self awareness here is staggering tbh. You’re literally accusing me of doing exactly what you did.
I’m not sure what you mean about the words used. That’s the process and how it’s audited.
The grounds of why they arrested him have been released, it also says he was clean, so he's another innocent black man stopped and searched for as, you say:
Dude, if those are grounds for stop and search, the law is an arse
I'm not convinced he's actually agreeing with law here just explaining that when it's in place, the police will and are using it but I could be wrong.
Do you actually agree with a law that allows you to arrest someone for wearing a coat in warm weather?
Do you actually agree with a law that allows you to arrest someone for wearing a coat in warm weather?
I’m just explaining that someone’s clothing, along with the area they are in (backed up by current intelligence/crime trends) can be used as grounds to detain someone for a stop search. The law gives a power to detain for exercising the power and completing the search.
I don’t think anyone was arrested were they?
And I'm asking if you honestly think that's a law that should exist?
I know stop and search is a very difficult subject overall though.
A law to arrest people out wearing coats? No of course not.
It’s a controversial power which has its positives and negatives
But that's exactly what you're explaining. You're saying that you have the power to detain someone for walking in the wrong area, wearing the wrong clothes
Location wise, this "location know for drug use" or whatever, was it in a predominantly white area, or a majority minority area? I think we can both guess. And if it was a minority area and a minority is walking through a side street, a side street he's likely to know if he's from the area, why would he not walk down it?
You're a good poster and I love hearing your point of view, but you can't say that these "controversial powers" that mean wearing the "wrong" clothes in the "wrong" area are just or fair.
And because of the police's historic designation of low cost housing as the "danger" areas, these laws are inherently racist.
I bet they didn’t even apologise to him after finding nothing on him. Bastards. And I’m not surprised to see one of the resident feds in here justifying it. That’s what they do. They may not be a Bad Apple™ their self but God forbid they call out their colleagues’ abuse of power.
Another daft post. Get a grip.
The Manchester bomber was dressed in all black and had a bulky backpack. He was an Asian male. He wasn’t stopped because security didn’t want to be seen as racist.
If he had been stopped there could conceivably have been similar outrage of stereotyping
If he had been stopped there could conceivably have been similar outrage of stereotyping