Indeed the IPCC found that they should have waited for female officers. However to think that four males, and one female, (of any occupation) would strip somebody down to the bare skin, on camera, in an environment where many other people may be present (other officers including those of senior rank, solicitors, doctors, nurses, detention officers) all to get a look at her naked body, whilst risking their livelihoods, is a little outlandish do you not think? Is it not more likely that they felt they had reasonable grounds to do so, even if it was later found that their grounds were not reasonable? The IPCC hasn't made any mention of sexual assault, which would suggest that the victim has not alleged it.
Keeping her naked however is inexcuseable, and for that they will be dealt with.
People do behave outlandishly. Wouldn't you say that for someone to take a gun and rob a shop where they know very well that the shop assistant was at school with them and will identify them is outlandish? And yet I know of a man who did just that.
Just because one (or even more) officers in the past have been found using their position to sexually abuse people doesn't mean that the whole workforce has a taste for it. You could say the same about teachers, nurses, care workers, doctors, the list goes on. You could say the same about all mankind. Police Officers are people like everybody else, and as such there will be some bad ones. There will also be police officers out there who are asexual. You can't just make an assumption about a whole workforce based on the actions of a minute amount.
You misread my post. I am not suggesting that one police officer being convicted of sexual offences means either that all police officers are sex offenders or even that they are more likely than anyone else to be so. What it does show is that being a police officer doesn't automatically rule out being a sex offender too.
People do behave outlandishly. Wouldn't you say that for someone to take a gun and rob a shop where they know very well that the shop assistant was at school with them and will identify them is outlandish? And yet I know of a man who did just that.
Indeed they do, and I'd hope you agree with me when I'd say it's pretty outlandish to suggest that 4 men and 1 woman would risk their jobs and potentially their freedom, to get a look at a naked body whilst being recorded on camera and with the high possibility of various people, colleagues and non-colleagues being present. What I take exception with is certain people in this thread who jump straight to the outlandish idea as above, yet won't even consider the more rational possibilities.
You misread my post. I am not suggesting that one police officer being convicted of sexual offences means either that all police officers are sex offenders or even that they are more likely than anyone else to be so. What it does show is that being a police officer doesn't automatically rule out being a sex offender too.
I apologise - that is the way it sounded. I agree however that being a police officer doesn't instantly rule somebody out of being a sex offender, and to think it does is ridiculous. However it doesn't instantly suggest they are a sex offender neither, which was suggested by one particular forum member on here and alluded to by quite a few others.
Kent Police has informed the IPCC that on 11 July 2013, two officers were called to attend an address where a 40-year-old man was believed to have taken a suspected overdose. Paramedics also attended the property and provided medical treatment. The man refused to be taken to hospital and following inquiries by the officers, the man was arrested for offences reported earlier that day and was taken into custody.
The IPCC has been told that on his arrival at Medway custody suite at 5.10pm the custody sergeant was informed that the man had taken a suspected overdose and had mental health issues. The man was placed in a cell and, according to police records, he was later found to have tied a t-shirt around his neck, blue in the face and not breathing. The t-shirt was removed and the IPCC understands he was later taken to Medway Hospital where he was declared fit for detention and interview and was returned to custody.
This man wasn't even in a distressed state (unlike the female who is subject of this thread). Didn't somebody on here advocate to "Just let them cool off in a cell overnight." Well, here is what can happen.
Indeed they do, and I'd hope you agree with me when I'd say it's pretty outlandish to suggest that 4 men and 1 woman would risk their jobs and potentially their freedom, to get a look at a naked body whilst being recorded on camera and with the high possibility of various people, colleagues and non-colleagues being present. What I take exception with is certain people in this thread who jump straight to the outlandish idea as above, yet won't even consider the more rational possibilities.
I do, to be honest, struggle to come up with another explanation. I can accept that not waiting for female officers to do the strip search might be down to simple impatience, wanting to get on with other things. But to leave her naked? If not sexual, then maybe exasperation at her, a desire to punish and humiliate?
I do, to be honest, struggle to come up with another explanation. I can accept that not waiting for female officers to do the strip search might be down to simple impatience, wanting to get on with other things. But to leave her naked? If not sexual, then maybe exasperation at her, a desire to punish and humiliate?
After a strip search it is normal practice to give the person their clothes back, or replacements if their own need to be seized.
I've known suspects refuse to put clothes back on a number of times, always men in my experience, and there was certainly nothing sexual about them being naked in their cell. Maybe that happened here.
After a strip search it is normal practice to give the person their clothes back, or replacements if their own need to be seized.
I've known suspects refuse to put clothes back on a number of times, always men in my experience, and there was certainly nothing sexual about them being naked in their cell. Maybe that happened here.
It doesn't really matter to me if that was done here.
Men shouldn't have strip searched her full stop. As we've all agreed.
It was an appalling episode from start to finish. I hope the officers are dismissed for gross misconduct.
I do, to be honest, struggle to come up with another explanation. I can accept that not waiting for female officers to do the strip search might be down to simple impatience, wanting to get on with other things. But to leave her naked? If not sexual, then maybe exasperation at her, a desire to punish and humiliate?
I think DP and Somner struggle with accepting that there may be an explanation/motive for the action of the males in this case, other than a simple breach of procedure.
I think DP and Somner struggle with accepting that there may be an explanation/motive for the action of the males in this case, other than a simple breach of procedure.
Indeed.
I think the intention was to humiliate and degrade.
Indeed.
I think the intention was to humiliate and degrade.
You think, but don't know anymore than I do.
However, having had the unpleasant task of having to search extremely unruly prisoners, sexual motives are the last thing on my mind.
The procedures were all wrong here, and there is no dispute about that.
An extremely stroppy person that they've dealt with could easily have just been stuck in the cell to calm down before being given the clothes back. Still wrong, but plausible.
I think DP and Somner struggle with accepting that there may be an explanation/motive for the action of the males in this case, other than a simple breach of procedure.
I thought you'd gone, but here you are back with the same snidy comments, and incapable of taking in what those of us with experience of these things have to say.
I think DP and Somner struggle with accepting that there may be an explanation/motive for the action of the males in this case, other than a simple breach of procedure.
Not at all - I just don't jump straight to a completely outlandish idea and then claim it as fact. I've suggested possibilities, so has DP. You on the other hand have insisted that it was a sexual assault.
Considering some of the accusations you've been throwing around about Deep Purple it might be worth you addressing the points in post #348.
Not at all - I just don't jump straight to a completely outlandish idea and then claim it as fact. I've suggested possibilities, so has DP. You on the other hand have insisted that it was a sexual assault.
Considering some of the accusations you've been throwing around about Deep Purple it might be worth you addressing the points in post #348.
Not at all - I just don't jump straight to a completely outlandish idea and then claim it as fact. I've suggested possibilities, so has DP. You on the other hand have insisted that it was a sexual assault.
Considering some of the accusations you've been throwing around about Deep Purple it might be worth you addressing the points in post #348.
The only thing I've claimed as fact is that what those male Officers did, still amounted to an act of sexual assault irrespective of whether there was sexual motivation behind it or not. An act for which the lady concerned might well need psychological treatment.
The factor I throw in as a possibility, is that they were indeed motivated either by sex or a need to humiliate her in some way.
I still don't think either of you fully appreciate the trauma which this event will most likely have inflicted on the woman.
Oh by the way, I don't think I need any lectures when it comes to making accusations against DP. He's made enough against me over the years.
The only thing I've claimed as fact is that what those male Officers did, still amounted to an act of sexual assault irrespective of whether there was sexual motivation behind it or not. An act for which the lady concerned might well need psychological treatment.
The factor I throw in as a possibility, is that they were indeed motivated either by sex or a need to humiliate her in some way.
I still don't think either of you fully appreciate the trauma which this event will most likely have inflicted on the woman.
Oh by the way, I don't think I need any lectures when it comes to making accusations against DP. He's made enough against me over the years.
The reply was 10 hours later, so hadn't even seen it. Thank you for posting just now and bringing the topic back to the top of the page.
I think that goes both ways because we rarely agree on anything.
In respect of this thread, your accusations were well over the top and unjustified, as was detailed in post 348.
None of that was necessary, because I never said any of the things you accused me of.
You do try to present a story as you want it to be, rather than what is known, and when challenged you start to throw in possiblies and maybes, as you have done here.
We have acknowledged from the start that they were completely wrong, but that wasn't good enough for you, you then attacked me for not having empathy. You just cant acknowledge I can say something is wrong without wanting to wring more out of it.
I think that goes both ways because we rarely agree on anything.
In respect of this thread, your accusations were well over the top and unjustified, as was detailed in post 348.
None of that was necessary, because I never said any of the things you accused me of.
You do try to present a story as you want it to be, rather than what is known, and when challenged you start to throw in possiblies and maybes, as you have done here.
We have acknowledged from the start that they were completely wrong, but that wasn't good enough for you, you then attacked me for not having empathy. You just cant acknowledge I can say something is wrong without wanting to wring more out of it.
But it was only at that moment when you finally said that you felt sorry for her. Before then, you were too busy defending police procedures and detailing relevant law, to say a word about how the woman herself might have felt.
...and having posted over 22% of the total replies to this thread yourself, it's not like you didn't have ample opportunity to express some personal sympathy for the woman concerned, or even some acknowledgement that she may need at the very least, counselling following what would be a very traumatic event.
But it was only at that moment when you finally said that you felt sorry for her. Before then, you were too busy defending police procedures and detailing relevant law, to say a word about how the woman herself might have felt.
...and having posted over 22% of the total replies to this thread yourself, it's not like you didn't have ample opportunity to express some personal sympathy for the woman concerned, or even some acknowledgement that she may need at the very least, counselling following what would be a very traumatic event.
So I think my accusation was well justified.
You never approached wanting empathy until the end, which seemed to coincide with realising I hadn't defended anyone.
I didn't know when discussing a topic that you had to show empathy at the same time as discussing what happened.
The topic was about what happened, and to comment on how Police procedures should work, and do relevant.
Your accusations had no justification at all, because they were al about me defending what these Officers did, and I didn't, not once.
The empathy bit was thrown in at the end as a deflection.
You never approached wanting empathy until the end, which seemed to coincide with realising I hadn't defended anyone.
I didn't know when discussing a topic that you had to show empathy at the same time as discussing what happened.
The topic was about what happened, and to comment on how Police procedures should work, and do relevant.
Your accusations had no justification at all, because they were al about me defending what these Officers did, and I didn't, not once.
The empathy bit was thrown in at the end as a deflection.
The topic was indeed about what happened. We are entitled to debate it from whatever angle we see fit. The OP was clearly annoyed by what happened, as was I.
What you have said in the emboldened bit above shows the angle you are coming from IMO.
The angle I'm coming from is the hurt and humiliation inflicted on the woman, which I really don't like, and searching for reasons why it might have happened.
Incidentally, I never said you were defending the officers. In fairness, you definitely didn't do that. I said you showed no empathy with the woman, which until prompted, you didn't.
Still a fair criticism in my opinion, but obviously you feel a little defensive about it. I get that.
The topic was indeed about what happened. We are entitled to debate it from whatever angle we see fit. The OP was clearly annoyed by what happened, as was I.
What you have said in the emboldened bit above shows the angle you are coming from IMO.
The angle I'm coming from is the hurt and humiliation inflicted on the woman, which I really don't like, and searching for reasons why it might have happened.
Incidentally, I never said you were defending the officers. In fairness, you definitely didn't do that. I said you showed no empathy with the woman, which until prompted, you didn't.
Still a fair criticism in my opinion, but obviously you feel a little defensive about it. I get that.
I know how it works between us, but it was a little different here. Read somners excellent summary of how this developed in post 348.
I had condemned what they did twice before you came in and made accusations of me calling you a Police hater, and quoting the law to support those involved.
You made other similar posts.
That is what my objections are about, not your opinion of the Police. I cant do anything about that.
The womans feelings came into things later, and that is a different angle to what happened. I don't tend to go into feelings in general, because I don't think it is usually necessary, but that doesn't mean I don't care about people.
I was actually very conscientious about treating people properly in real life, and still am. That type of thing doesn't come across in forums.
I was recently striped naked in a police cell and searched just because I was drunk, held on breach of the peace which is a minor offence... I was left naked and it is completely
humaliting and disgusting in my opinion.all was done on CCTV for all to see as well. it is wrong.
I was given no blanket and when I spoke to a solicitor about it , he said that he had never heard of a person being searched just because they are drunk.. and that that is a bit extreme.
I felt like I had been attacked , as in all fairness I had.
Comments
I think hell would freeze over first.
People do behave outlandishly. Wouldn't you say that for someone to take a gun and rob a shop where they know very well that the shop assistant was at school with them and will identify them is outlandish? And yet I know of a man who did just that.
You misread my post. I am not suggesting that one police officer being convicted of sexual offences means either that all police officers are sex offenders or even that they are more likely than anyone else to be so. What it does show is that being a police officer doesn't automatically rule out being a sex offender too.
Indeed they do, and I'd hope you agree with me when I'd say it's pretty outlandish to suggest that 4 men and 1 woman would risk their jobs and potentially their freedom, to get a look at a naked body whilst being recorded on camera and with the high possibility of various people, colleagues and non-colleagues being present. What I take exception with is certain people in this thread who jump straight to the outlandish idea as above, yet won't even consider the more rational possibilities.
I apologise - that is the way it sounded. I agree however that being a police officer doesn't instantly rule somebody out of being a sex offender, and to think it does is ridiculous. However it doesn't instantly suggest they are a sex offender neither, which was suggested by one particular forum member on here and alluded to by quite a few others.
This man wasn't even in a distressed state (unlike the female who is subject of this thread). Didn't somebody on here advocate to "Just let them cool off in a cell overnight." Well, here is what can happen.
I do, to be honest, struggle to come up with another explanation. I can accept that not waiting for female officers to do the strip search might be down to simple impatience, wanting to get on with other things. But to leave her naked? If not sexual, then maybe exasperation at her, a desire to punish and humiliate?
After a strip search it is normal practice to give the person their clothes back, or replacements if their own need to be seized.
I've known suspects refuse to put clothes back on a number of times, always men in my experience, and there was certainly nothing sexual about them being naked in their cell. Maybe that happened here.
It doesn't really matter to me if that was done here.
Men shouldn't have strip searched her full stop. As we've all agreed.
It was an appalling episode from start to finish. I hope the officers are dismissed for gross misconduct.
I think DP and Somner struggle with accepting that there may be an explanation/motive for the action of the males in this case, other than a simple breach of procedure.
Indeed.
I think the intention was to humiliate and degrade.
You think, but don't know anymore than I do.
However, having had the unpleasant task of having to search extremely unruly prisoners, sexual motives are the last thing on my mind.
The procedures were all wrong here, and there is no dispute about that.
An extremely stroppy person that they've dealt with could easily have just been stuck in the cell to calm down before being given the clothes back. Still wrong, but plausible.
I thought you'd gone, but here you are back with the same snidy comments, and incapable of taking in what those of us with experience of these things have to say.
Perhaps you could address post 348.
Not at all - I just don't jump straight to a completely outlandish idea and then claim it as fact. I've suggested possibilities, so has DP. You on the other hand have insisted that it was a sexual assault.
Considering some of the accusations you've been throwing around about Deep Purple it might be worth you addressing the points in post #348.
The Sound of Silence
The only thing I've claimed as fact is that what those male Officers did, still amounted to an act of sexual assault irrespective of whether there was sexual motivation behind it or not. An act for which the lady concerned might well need psychological treatment.
The factor I throw in as a possibility, is that they were indeed motivated either by sex or a need to humiliate her in some way.
I still don't think either of you fully appreciate the trauma which this event will most likely have inflicted on the woman.
Oh by the way, I don't think I need any lectures when it comes to making accusations against DP. He's made enough against me over the years.
The reply was 10 hours later, so hadn't even seen it. Thank you for posting just now and bringing the topic back to the top of the page.
It's certainly a possibility to be considered.
I think that goes both ways because we rarely agree on anything.
In respect of this thread, your accusations were well over the top and unjustified, as was detailed in post 348.
None of that was necessary, because I never said any of the things you accused me of.
You do try to present a story as you want it to be, rather than what is known, and when challenged you start to throw in possiblies and maybes, as you have done here.
We have acknowledged from the start that they were completely wrong, but that wasn't good enough for you, you then attacked me for not having empathy. You just cant acknowledge I can say something is wrong without wanting to wring more out of it.
But it was only at that moment when you finally said that you felt sorry for her. Before then, you were too busy defending police procedures and detailing relevant law, to say a word about how the woman herself might have felt.
...and having posted over 22% of the total replies to this thread yourself, it's not like you didn't have ample opportunity to express some personal sympathy for the woman concerned, or even some acknowledgement that she may need at the very least, counselling following what would be a very traumatic event.
So I think my accusation was well justified.
You never approached wanting empathy until the end, which seemed to coincide with realising I hadn't defended anyone.
I didn't know when discussing a topic that you had to show empathy at the same time as discussing what happened.
The topic was about what happened, and to comment on how Police procedures should work, and do relevant.
Your accusations had no justification at all, because they were al about me defending what these Officers did, and I didn't, not once.
The empathy bit was thrown in at the end as a deflection.
The topic was indeed about what happened. We are entitled to debate it from whatever angle we see fit. The OP was clearly annoyed by what happened, as was I.
What you have said in the emboldened bit above shows the angle you are coming from IMO.
The angle I'm coming from is the hurt and humiliation inflicted on the woman, which I really don't like, and searching for reasons why it might have happened.
Incidentally, I never said you were defending the officers. In fairness, you definitely didn't do that. I said you showed no empathy with the woman, which until prompted, you didn't.
Still a fair criticism in my opinion, but obviously you feel a little defensive about it. I get that.
I know how it works between us, but it was a little different here. Read somners excellent summary of how this developed in post 348.
I had condemned what they did twice before you came in and made accusations of me calling you a Police hater, and quoting the law to support those involved.
You made other similar posts.
That is what my objections are about, not your opinion of the Police. I cant do anything about that.
The womans feelings came into things later, and that is a different angle to what happened. I don't tend to go into feelings in general, because I don't think it is usually necessary, but that doesn't mean I don't care about people.
I was actually very conscientious about treating people properly in real life, and still am. That type of thing doesn't come across in forums.
humaliting and disgusting in my opinion.all was done on CCTV for all to see as well. it is wrong.
I felt like I had been attacked , as in all fairness I had.