Outrageous Police Behavoir

Outrageous Police Behavoir

36 posts
31 July 2013
KevinJS
Photographer
KevinJS
Hi

Just saw this on the BBC Site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23518189


These guys should be sacked totaly wrong what they did to this lady

And we have posts about dodgy photographers , these guys take the biscut

Posted 31 July 2013
HMansfield
Photographer
HMansfield
What it also brings up (albeit briefly) is the subject of drink spiking.

I've had work colleagues who have had their drinks spiked before and were just brushed off as not being able to handle their drink.

I also had an ex-flatmate admit that he once had some LSD that he planned on spiking my drink with, "just for a laugh". I sometimes wonder how I would have behaved if that had gone ahead, and what the outcome of any Police interaction would have been.

Posted 31 July 2013
paulford
Photographer
paulford
Not the first time won't be the last, How many other cases are where when no complaint has been made?


Posted 1 Aug 2013
Sarge
Photographer
Sarge
I always read these with a large pinch of salt.

Firstly, its disgusting behaviour if it happened as stated in the story and they deserve all they get.
But I also believe that there will be more behind it.

Firstly an investigation already found it in favour of the officers involved (not unusual to come to that conclusion for right or wrong reasons though). This would have been by someone higher in power due to the nature of it and wouldn't have been done lightly.

Secondly a newspaper likes nothing more than a story discrediting the police and often miss out pieces of information on purpose.

Thirdly is a police officer going to risk a 36 grand a year job on doing something like this that they know they shouldn't be and knowing it will all be filmed? Never mind 4 or 5 police at the same time and knowing that they could also go to jail for it.

As for being told she may be kept in for longer if she wants a legal rep, well that is true in most cases. Firstly the legal rep wont come if the person is drunk. The legal rep doesnt work from the police station so will have to get there which could take 30 minutes or 3 hours or more (depending on the legal rep).
They may be able to be dealt with quicker before fully sober and released quicker if a legal rep isn't involved.
It is still up to the person though.
They can still seek help/advice after being released.

Posted 1 Aug 2013
Edited by Sarge 1 Aug 2013
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
Sarge

I always read these with a large pinch of salt. Firstly, its disgusting behaviour if it happened as stated in the story and they deserve all they get. But I also believe that there will be more behind it. Firstly an investigation already found it in favour of the officers involved (not unusual to come to that conclusion for right or wrong reasons though). This would have been by someone higher in power due to the nature of it and wouldn't have been done lightly. Secondly a newspaper likes nothing more than a story discrediting the police and often miss out pieces of information on purpose. Thirdly is a police officer going to risk a 36 grand a year job on doing something like this that they know they shouldn't be and knowing it will all be filmed? Never mind 4 or 5 police at the same time and knowing that they could also go to jail for it. As for being told she may be kept in for longer if she wants a legal rep, well that is true in most cases. Firstly the legal rep wont come if the person is drunk. The legal rep doesnt work from the police station so will have to get there which could take 30 minutes or 3 hours or more (depending on the legal rep). They may be able to be dealt with quicker before fully sober and released quicker if a legal rep isn't involved. It is still up to the person though. They can still seek help/advice after being released.


As you've said, there are always two sides to a story and newspapers and the media love one that knocks the police and I for one never believe everything I read..

However, this is not some rabid journalist in a daily rag making claims or sensationalising an event, it's a news item carried by the BBC quoting comments from the leader of the iPCC on the behaviour of the police officers during the event in question. They will have had all the facts/evidence placed in front of them so there should be some balance to the story.

Given the numerous gross miscarriages of justice and whitewashes in high profile 'investigations' by the police on themselves, I and probably many ordinary people too, will possibly have less faith than you in the impartiality of the police when it comes to investigating their own in events like this and the outcome of there being no case to answer in this case, from my perspective, hardly comes as a surprise. 

I'm not saying you are wrong in your comments but it will be interesting to see the outcome of this one if it is further investigated..


Posted 1 Aug 2013
KevinJS
Photographer
KevinJS
Hello Sarge,
Reading your response I disagree with you completely for the following reasons.
The Police have always crossed the line and in most cases in the belief they can get away with it, and while the perpetrator’s may be small in number it is those who remain silent, for fear of rocking the boat that enable them to get away with it.

From my side the significant breaches of authority over the years I am aware of are listed below, though most people would be able to add more
 
1971 Sir Robert Marks was appointed Chief Constable of the Met with the brief to root out corruption, half the Flying Squad were forced into early retirement / Prison / moved sideways
The famous phrase from the time was ‘A good police force catches more criminals than it employs’ that may convey the sense of self benefit in the force at that time.
 
1972 London had two evening newspapers in those days. The Standard and the Evening News, one ran a story about the large numbers of Police arrests in central London both by the Metropolitan Police force and British Transport Police between 21.20 and 21.50, for minor offences D & D BoP etc, which the article stated was because the arrest would result in 2/3 hours paid overtime, this was refuted by both police forces, the newspaper then provided an audio transcript of a conversation between their reporter and 4 serving officers. The result was a senior policeman made the remark that the newspaper would no longer be getting advertisement money.

1979 The Special Patrol Group while policing an Anti-Nazi Protest killed Blair Peach a protestor, the inquiry took till 2010 a total of 21 years after the event. At that time as a result of the Cass inquiry No1 SPG lockers were searched and numerous illegal weapons were found. No one was prosecuted
In addition to this there was the erroneous shooting of Stephen Waldorf in 1982. Let’s not dwell on the abuse of authority during the miners’ strike.
 
1980 The West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, this goes on and on see link below
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/west-midlands-serious-crime-squad-police-unit-to-blame-for-dozens-more-injustices-1120219.html.
 
1989 The Hillsborough Disaster, that took till last year, a chief constable had to resign though he kept his knighthood.and pension.
 
1993 Stephen Lawrence, this is still going on today, last report was of muckraking and secret recording of conversations in solicitors offices.
 
2004 Around this time the newspapers reported that Customs and Excise would not share information with NCIS,The below article may explain why.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/may/30/ukcrime1
 
2005 Robert De Menezes was shoot in error by the police, what was not published at the inquiry was that he was restrained so he could not move and then shoot, not once but seven times,  the result was  his mother could not look on her sons face. The witnesses account and the Mets were two different stories and the publics were held to be correct.  At the time the Met Commissioner  Sir Ian Blair said words to the effect that this was regrettable but in the present climate was likely to happen again, not much there for public reassurance. Summary in the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

2009 Death of Ian Tomlison and while the police officer lost his job, with his historical record he should never have been employed, bear in mind this man assulted a young girl and  threathened to burn down a persons home in the past
 
2012 Coming up to date we have had the Levison Inquiry and yes several police officers have been arrested, but it should not have come to the inquiry before an arrest is made.
This morning it was announced that SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency)  Will not allow MP’s who are in effect their bosses to publish a list of Solicitors/Companies who have employed illegal investigators. No one has been prosecuted for illegal activity at these companies or is likely to be. See link below
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/revealed-major-bluechip-companies-escape-censure-over-use-of-corrupt-private-investigators-8738609.html
 
Now to cause concern the Mail have also published an article stating that Sir Ian Andrews wife is a lawyer working for a global security and investigations firm. Now it goes on to say that he failed to disclose this potential conflict of interest. See link below
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374511/Police-chief-Sir-Ian-Andrews-hacking-lawyers-cover-wife-conflict-interest.html
 
Now please accept that I am not out to witch hunt the police, but feel it is time we had a police force, which the public could have confidence in, sadly this is not the case today, my feelings are that the police do not take responsibility for their errors and when accused of abuse of authority try to cover things up. Also I have no axe to grind with you, I have read your past posts and you are the type of photographer this site needs however on your commens regarding this young girl I regret I differ dramatically from my views .and the issue of spiked drinks has not been mentioned
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted 1 Aug 2013
Kiboko
Photographer
Kiboko
You've certainly done your research Kevin! I would merely like to add though, that history is littered with instances of doctors who've murdered patients, dentists who've sexually assaulted patients, clergy who've assaulted children, MP's who've committed acts of fraud, political leaders who lead corrupt regimes, sportsmen and women who've taken drugs to aid their prowess,....... and my point is,..... we're human beings! So what you wish for is utopia and will simply never happen, history hasn't so far proven otherwise methinks.

Posted 1 Aug 2013
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
I'll tell you a story. totally true and quite shocking. It may or maybe not relevant to the case in hand, but see what you think. About 15 years ago, give or take, I arrested a 17 year old girl for failing to comply with bail conditions. I ended up stripping her naked, handcuffing her with her hands behind her back and restraining her on the floor for four hours (on overtime) in company with a policewoman. She was in a juvenile detention room with the door open and part visible to anyone walking into the charge office. Sounds pretty dreadful, doesn't it. And it was, but not perhaps for the reasons you might be thinking.

The lass had been in secure detention for many years, largely because of her violent behaviour, and was in the stages of release into society. She was placed in a flat with two social workers also present 24/7 working in shifts. In the week she was at this flat, the threatened staff in McDonalds with a knife, smashed shop windows, assaulted people in the street, and generally caused mayhem, being arrested every day of that week, but released into the custody of the social workers every time, as was obligatory then.

By the end of the week the social workers were pleading with us to do something, anything, to contain this girl. Girl? She was about 5'9" and built like Guy The Gorilla. Anyway, we got her to the nick with a bit of sweet talking and she was arrested, at which point she went potty. We got her into a cell but that was just the beginning. She started to tear her clothes off and use the strips of material to tie around her own neck, strangling herself until she went, quite literally, purple. What to do? The only sensible answer was to strip her, which we did. Had we merely tried to restrain her we would have been battling like badgers for the entire time. As soon as she was back in the cell, she started banging her head against the wall, and I mean big time, the wall was shaking, and the booming sound was echoing around the charge office. I had no doubt that if left to her own devices she would have smashed her head to hamburger.

We ended up handcuffing her and placing her face down, pinning her arms down either side. She was as strong as an ox, and fought against the restraint for over four hours, on occasions lifting both myself and the police woman from our kneeling positions. With hindsight, a truly marvellous analytical tool, we might as well have gone straight to the handcuffing, but nobody could possibly have anticipated the headbanging routine she went into.

In view of her condition, and to try and avoid allegations of impropriety I insisted the door to the cell was left sufficiently ajar to allow monitoring of what was happening. A police surgeon was on site for some time while this was happening. He had been there when she was brought in. When the ruck started I asked him to administer a sedative. He said he couldn't because her condition was behavioural and not an illness (?). Neither would he commit her to a mental hospital (padded cell) for the same reason.

This was one of the most traumatic incidents of my career. I can still see the handcuffs on her wrists, damaged so much by her self inflicted wounds that the handcuff bars were in the part healed wounds to their depth. Could it have been handled better? With hindsight, possibly, although not much, IMO, under the rules of the time. It was a developing situation and decisions had to be made on the fly, before she killed herself, or someone else. God knows what happened to her. I hope something good, but I doubt it.

So, things ain't always what they seem.

Posted 1 Aug 2013
HMansfield
Photographer
HMansfield
In fairness though Sdeve, your client was relieved of her clothing because she'd demonstrated that she would use to inflict harm on herself (and possibly others).

The lady in the news article was stripped for the purpose of a drugs search, and after none were found, did not have her clothes returned to her.

Were the PACE (or equivalent) guidelines regarding same-sex searching the same 15 years ago as they are now?

Posted 1 Aug 2013
KevinJS
Photographer
KevinJS
Hi,
It has just been announced that Sir Ian Andrews has now resigned from SOCA the reason being an undeclared interest in a management Consultancy company something he was duty bound to do.
 
Sdeve, you had a tough call but this is not the same thing, you event was a woman with a history of dysfunctional behaviour. The girl in the BBC report  did not indicate that she was from that background in addition
  1. The search was held to be without adequate justification.
  2. The search was in breach of the rules saying these searches must be carried out by officers of the same sex.
  3. This was filmed and broadcast to the Custody Desk, who knows who else was watching, and it is disturbing to think that a viewer may have been doing so for their own carnal satisfaction.
  4. The tribunal stated that the behaviour breached professional standards expected of police officers
  5. The Duty Sargent failed to make sure the search was carried out within the rules and failed to record the incident, not re assuring to the public
  6. The Police neglected to investigate her claim that the drink had been spiked
 
Derrick Campbell from the IPCC went on to say
"I find it difficult to understand why police officers think they have the right to strip a young woman of all her clothes, leaving her naked for half an hour and then expose her to being filmed.
"I am sure, like the complainant, the public will want to understand how this was allowed to happen. I look forward to the misconduct process getting the answers that are needed."
 
So overall not good
 
 
Posted 1 Aug 2013
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
Couldn't agree more with the 'not good'. The custody sergeant who failed to make a record of the search should be dismissed, if for no other reason than he's too stupid. He has no excuse. Such an event should be recorded, end of. If you'd watched as many booking in events at a custody suite as I have, it's inconceivable that such an event was not recorded. This brings into doubt the whole event with the suspicion that there may be a cadre of uniformed pervs who enjoy such opportunities. I doubt very much that is the case, but that's one of the reasons for proper recording, and if the custody sergeant was aware of what was taking place then either it was a group perv or he was just too damned stupid to hold any sort of office.

As far as the woman's mental state goes, the IPCC says "the woman was intoxicated, distressed and running in and out of a road". For distressed read off her head. It's possible that she was so off her rocker that considerable force would have to be used to restrain her for the search, and sometimes that requires upper body strength that most women just don't have, so perhaps male help was necessary, in which case it would be lawful (within PACE). Restraining a violently out of control person, even a six stone sweetie, is damned difficult to do if your intention is not to cause damage. Leaving her naked for half an hour might, might, be justified as giving her time to calm down from a distressing incident. Failing to investigate her spiked drink allegations is most probably just down to the fact that such an investigation would be almost impossible, and would achieve nothing. Think for a moment how you'd go about it.

Derrick Campbell does seem to show what sort of idiots the IPCC employ. He refers to her ...'then being filmed.' This is almost certain to be the CCTV in the cell which is on 24/7.

Posted 1 Aug 2013
KevinJS
Photographer
KevinJS
Hello

Back to this, the woman almost certainly was ‘Off her head’ however it was what caused her to be in this state which is important. If it was only alcohol then that was her fault and an arrest if only for her safety was in order. However her claim that her drink was spiked was not investigated is the issue, predator chemicals like Rohypnol have a limited life and a urine test within 12 hours would have established if that were the case.

Turning to the search, the IPCC does state categorically that it should be done by same sex officers this was not the case.

When the woman was forcibly stripped, this would almost certainly cause her panic, she would be wondering what was going to happen next and this would have added to her distress. The issue of why she was stripped has not been clarified; there is no mention of self-harm.

Derrick Campbell does not seem to me to be an idiot, just a person doing his job effectively. His comment on filming relate to the fact it was broadcast to the Custody Desk, who else was watching her in the cell  and out of interest I wonder if anyone took a copy of the film and the forcible stripping for their own personal use. This might sound contentious but the fact the Custody Sargent did not record the incident makes my suspicious of the intent.

And back to SOCA details of Sir Ian’s resignation below
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23537513
 
Posted 1 Aug 2013
Sarge
Photographer
Sarge
There are 2 ways of looking at this I agree. We have VERY limited information, which is what the press are good at doing as it makes a story. Lets look at this a slightly different way playing devils advocate... For starters we know she was 'running in and out of traffic'. Ok, she may have been off her head, due to her fault or the effects of her drinks being spiked, but that still doesn't change her actions or the injuries she may have sustained at the time and the choices the officers had at the time. Doing this you are going to be hurt if hit by a vehicle we can all agree on, so she could have been arrested for either sec 136 of the mental health act, for being drunk and disorderly or for public order (or other reasons that may not have come to light in this story). Back at the station she may have been still 'up in the air' and either trying to self harm or others. Ok, the story doesn't say she was doing this (or that she WASN'T doing this). I however think she may have been and I will explain why. She may have been taken straight to the cell prior to being booked in if particularly aggressive. To search a prisoner if totally compliant you can do it with one officer, in this case rules (not laws) state that it must be same gender (or they are asked who they prefer if gender can not be ascertained). However, good practice is for two officers to do it. One doing the search the other watching (to make sure things aren't discarded/hidden etc) or to hold items of clothing. The only time they 'should' be strip searched is to find items that can be used to facilitate escape or used to harm themselves or others, or drugs/stolen items etc. If the person is kicking off then you will need several people (perhaps 5 or 6 for custody tactics). Here is where the problem could lie. For a start, the search will need to be conducted as quickly as possible, and they may not be more than 1 or 2 female officers on duty (never mind in the station), so finding others would be impossible. So, what should they do? Should they not bother and risk her harming herself or worse, or use the 1 or 2 female officers that are on duty and risk those being harmed? Of course for all I/we know they may have been several female officers on duty. If that's the case why did they use male ones in the first place? Why with just this girl and not others? Why hasn't ONE of those officers buckled under complaints interviews (believe me they WOULD when face with losing their jobs or going to prison). As said, the reasons for the strip search has not been clarified. Possible scenarios are... A) 5 officers including a female and custody officers wanted to get their thrills by stripping a woman who is off her head, whilst being videoed and risking their job and possibly go to jail. BTW Not all cells have video, the video cells are used for those who are going to self harm or who could injure themselves due to being drunk/drugged etc. B) She was possibly concealing something (weapon/drugs etc). C) She was going to self harm (don't forget she had already been trying to run into traffic, so a good possibility) and could have used her clothes in which to do so. I heard one story where a female prisoner killed herself in her cell by stuffing toilet paper into her mouth and choking, so ANY clothing would be easy to use. As for blood/urine samples, we know this was not done at the time. Ok, you say it could have been done when she had calmed down and sent off for analysis at the cost of a few hundred pounds to prove she WAS spiked. This would, have cleared her name and made a prosecution towards her unsafe. She could have also had her own sample done too when she left the police station, that was also an option. It wouldn't have brought a prosecution to the person who spiked it (unless she could name them that is). Lastly, we don't know what she took or what she had her drink spiked with. if you have ever dealt or seen anyone suffering from excited delirium (google it) you would understand why the police HAVE TO go in VERY heavy handed.
Posted 1 Aug 2013
Edited by Sarge 1 Aug 2013
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
There is actually only one way of looking at this. There is no grey area. She was stripped naked by one wpc and 5 male police present. She was "filmed" so front desk could enjoy the view.The police are not denying anything and as far as I am aware only female "officers" should be present...but hey guys why not get your jollies stripping off a girl who may have had her drink spiked. ...or even if she was drunk the issue is the same. Lets guess she was probably quite attractive?

Posted 1 Aug 2013
Sarge
Photographer
Sarge
OldMaster
There is actually only one way of looking at this. There is no grey area. She was stripped naked by one wpc and 5 male police present. She was "filmed" so front desk could enjoy the view.The police are not denying anything and as far as I am aware only female "officers" should be present...but hey guys why not get your jollies stripping off a girl who may have had her drink spiked. ...or even if she was drunk the issue is the same. Lets guess she was probably quite attractive?
Well that's it then, we can now close the thread I am glad the law and policing s like that, who needs all the facts when the news story is good enough.
Posted 2 Aug 2013
Edited by Sarge 2 Aug 2013
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join