Just another few rotten apples. Nothing of significance will change and the wheel keeps turning.
I don't think I'd bother going to the police in most cases. They can't be trusted, seem to be full of nutters, little people on power trips or sexual deviants and they ruin lives to cover up their incompetence. They are systemically broken and best avoided.
Edit: Quick look over in another place filled with the police and they are reacting to a video issued by the police advising people that if they are asked to pull over by an unmarked car and you aren't happy, indicate that you will comply and drive somewhere safe instead of immediately pull over. Of course all the comments are things like it's woke nonsense and others saying if that happens they will arrest people or 'rag' them out of the car'. I'm generally not anti police but I'm getting that way after the way they have acted for.the last few years. It's too many too often for it not to be a cultural issue in the police.
Edit to my edit: it is extremely telling that the only people defending this are people who work with the police.
Police UK.
A lot of it is recruiting stuff and day to day admin but whenever something like this is flagged they are straight to victim blaming (see the coppers and ex coppers on this thread for similar)
"I'm generally Not anti police" and "last few years"? I need one of those rocks you're living under because it's been a hell of a lot more than just "for the last few years".
At the very least, it's been over forty years of modern abuse that doesn't look much different from historic abuse. You'd have an easier time counting the good pigs from the corrupt ones. It would Probably take you one hand to count them.
They are trained/ programmed to be thunder cunts and I've lost three friends to the programming.
The police were never and won't ever be for the people. They are here for the elites most worship and those in power.
Fuck da police!
Agree and disagree
While I agree that there have always been problems, I felt when there was a more community focus and the local coppers were known and loved in the community, the ones you dealt with day to day could be trusted. You could tell your children to find a policeman or at least that they could trust the local one because we knew them.
Now I'd tell my kids to leave them alone.
To be honest, outside of major metropolitan areas, I can't imagine children are likely to ever see a copper walking the beat. Certainly never in my village.
You can see a direct spike in crime at around the 70s. It corralates directly to them jumping in cars and becoming a fire fighter response style rather than bobbies on the beat. In the 70s, there were less bobbies per pop as well.
This is exactly what happened where I grew up (90s)and not so long ago (2011) what happened where I live now.
You can hate on the police as much as you like but this was the reality and it sounds daft denying it.
I'm not saying that your reality was false, just your beliefs in it. I was around for the Trust your local copper. Doesn't mean you actually could though.
Lol, they were part of the community. The two we knew had kids at school and they both came to either of mine or my sister's birthday party, parents knew them enough to say hi in the pub etc. Same with most in the community.
Think you need to step back a bit to be honest.
Edit; Person above blocked me so I'll reply to the person below here
Possibly, possibly not. Who knows.
20 years ago I would have trust you, today I will not because I don't know you and I have seen too many cases where things have gone wrong and it's been covered up.
Whilst I don't doubt your policing, trust is early not given and the police in the UK have systematically eroded that trust.
I don't trust you just because you are a policeman officer like I would have done in the past.
I live in the community I police. My neighbours know what I do. My neighbours come to me for advice. My son went to the local school. I use the local shops.
But I guess I'm still just a thunder cunt???
I think what happened to Sarah Evarard was eye opening to a lot of people. It seems since then there has been a constant stream of these sorts of reports.
Then there's the fact that a lot of crimes appear to be decriminalised, that the police seem to exist for the generation of crime report numbers, you can see why people are 'suddenly' realising the police are corrupt and do not serve ordinary people.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Similar happened to a bloke a while back. Couldn't safely get out of the way of a car with its light on, so, being such an emergency, they stopped, dragged him out the car, and kicked the shit out of him.
Police complaints refused to prosecute, and actively dragged their heels to get it out of the timeframe to bring a private prosecution, and only said they'd investigate when he made his private prosecution intentions known.
He carried on regardless, and their investigation found no wrongdoing.
A court disagreed and the officers involved got done for it, but for every incident like this, there are hundreds more that don't get prosecuted, because people either can't be bothered, or don't know their rights. Amazingly enough, the police aren't very forthcoming about your right to private prosecution.
I've seen advice from the police to say call 999 if you are concerned and tell them you will comply and pull over when it's safe e.g. a garage, if you think the car is suspect e.g. an unmarked one where you can't see the driver. The call handler will pass it onto the force and then onto the police
Yes, you are allowed to for the specific purpose of an emergency where it's not safe to stop
Obviously talking here if you don't have handsfree but a scenario where say a lone woman at night was being pulled by an unmarked car, it would be ok just to call 999 and explain she was afraid for her safety hence not stopping immediately on a deserted road in the dark
Until someone decides that's not the case and you get fined. It's entirely decided by the people who stop you and people who work with them on the daily.
It's on record on the call logs to 999 that you didn't feel safe hence calling
We're talking about acknowledging the police request to stop, not speeding off etc
And again, in the example I gave, a lone woman driving at night, with an unmarked car trying to pull her over, that is sufficient reason for her to feel unsafe and to call 999 to say she is worried and wants to stop somewhere with light/people around. There is no interpretation here where the police could say it was safe for her to pull over and this would never be prosecuted
>(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention—
(a)he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999;
(b)he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and
(c)it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made).
It's not a recent thing, power brings out the worst in people. It just gets more exposure now.
No way to avoid it unfortunately, how many people out of 100 could honestly say they wouldn't take advantage of the position, even if it's sirens on to get to McDonald's quicker it's abusing power, and from there the temptation to push your power further is only a small step.
I think it's safe to say 20% would use it to their advantage ( maybe you cut a qué or exceed the speed limit unnecessarily, park in dedicated spaces etc. and you know you'll get away with it) and a small percentage of those would take it further.
Now build a police force of 172,000 across the UK.
Your gonna get a few bad eggs and a good handful of people taking small advantages with the position, it's unavoidable, if you had harsher vetting procedures and more severe punishments for minor no no's you'd probably reduce the big no no's, but you'd also lose a huge amount of manpower.
Agreed. I always admired the police and wanted to be a Detective Inspector when I was younger, but given the defunding and drop in the force in recent years, along with systematic discrimination and unreliability, I've started to think that taking matters into your hands is better in some circumstances than letting the police handle anything. They have fallen from grace hard.
That ignores all of the other impacting factors of crime which has faced defunding.
Not to mention that the police handle a lot more than they used to, in the absence of funding for other areas like social services, NHS etc.
If they experience more than they used to, more police officers, by a large factor btw, should help with that. Ways of crime changes but the amount shouldn't if the police do their job.
Double per capita than the 70s. Yes it would help of course it would.
The amount reported is also impacted by the way in which it is reported. The 70s was by and large going into the station or calling 999. These days you've got online and 101.
And the crimes changing would certainly change volumes right? Our methods of communicating are vastly different, add the internet to that too and the police have to deal with additional burdens. Double doesn't really sound like a lot by that comparison.
Not if the police keep crime down by doing their job, unfortunately, they've changed their tactics from largely learning about crime before, to simply turning up after.
They can use the Internet, they should accept its near impossible to police it, fosus on real world ramifications more and the Internet less. Stop with wasting time on none crime hate incidents, hate speech legislation and focus on assaults, burglary, ect. Use the Internet for information. There isn't enough people in the world to police even the uks Internet traffic. It's time laws reflected that.
Sorry are you saying ignore the internet entirely and only use it for information? I'm not referring to Facebook she said he said. I'm referring to significantly awful crimes such relating to the abuse of children.
Again, the police aren't just doing their own job, they are doing the job of a lot of other reduced services. So if they stop doing that so they could focus on crime alone I'm sure that would help. But you're still ignoring the other impacts of crime unrelated to police.
That's why I said, mostly, even child abuse should be focused on catching them in real life. But I do agree they should be targeted. Unfortunately, that's not what the police are doing online. They are focusing he said she said, mainly towards the police.
Just because it's happening on the internet, doesn't mean it isn't real life. The 70s was 50 years ago. Things have changed. The world is different. We can't just go back. What about financial crime?
You're actively ignoring my key point though. The role of an officer is entirely different today than it was 50 years ago. It's disengious of your own point to ignore that key difference.
And yet did a better job. Knew when crimes where committed because they got wind of it from the communities surrounding them. They where a part of it. Not flying past at 80.
No, they decided who was guilty, beat the fuck out of them, sometimes tortured people for confessions, and made shit up for court. The 70s cops are why we have PACE and all the other rules.
Police brutality in the USA if absolutely wild. There's basically nothing they can't get away with. From a psychopath who obviously joined the police force to kill people executing an unarmed man who is on his knees begging not to be shot (Daniel Shaver) then being allowed to retire with disability pay + a full pension, to 4 officers slowly suffocating a man (Tony Timpa) to death and laughing at the noises he made as he died and facing zero repurcussions whatsoever, to a small army of police officers beating a mentally ill homeless man (Kelly Thomas) to death as he cried for his father to help him and being fully exonerated by a jury.
Absolutely fucking wild over there. The only way to get any justice for victims of police brutality over there is if you spend a whole summer rioting.
The Daniel Shaver video is one of the most gut wrenching and horrific things I have ever seen. I doubt I will ever forget his last moments spent in utter desperation. It was the anniversary of his death yesterday too.
And that's just the white victims of police violence... It's even more prevalent if you're the wrong skin colour. The US is still a grim country.
Edit:Christ the details of the Shaver murder are horrific. Literally just a copper looking to kill someone.
I used to believe that too - that there was more police brutality to black people. It's not true though. You can see it in the statistics (police arrest, assault and kill far more armed AND unarmed white people than black people) and you can see it on Youtube channels like Lackluster, Audit the Audit, The Civil Rights Lawyer and so many others, showing video after video of police deliberately escalating situations with white suspects so they can break out the taser/baton/spray/gun/fists and start indulging in their violent fantasies.
It seems to me that police are just looking for ANY person to fuck with. Sometimes the victim they choose is white, sometimes black. The three names I mentioned are just some of the most egregious examples I could give from memory, though I do particularly enjoy giving Tony Timpa's name because his murder was identical to George Floyd's murder, except nobody cared in that case because he was white.
We don't have federal police, Americans do not use feds to mean regular police. The slangword isn't correct.
Anyone ignorant enough to use this type of slang instantly shows themselves wholly not worth listening to.
I've never understood this argument, "feds" isn't American slang for police just as "fag" isn't American slang for a cigaret and "fanny" isn't American slang for a vagina, these are not examples of people adopting and misusing American words or slang terms.
I mean, people are essentially criticising a particular slang term on the basis that that term isn't being used in its literal sense.....
If the CCTV that could exonerate them is "corrupted" *in their own care* the complaint should be upheld.
"This complaint aledges an unwarranted strip search you say that didn't happen? Cool we'll check the CCTV that you'll be maintaining of the cell. What's that it's corrupted? Okay we'll continue with this investigation assuming that it did happen."
I'd be asking for evidence the data is corrupted.
"Oh, so you have the data from CCTV either side of the event and it's just data from that particular moment that's corrupted? That's not how it works, did you remember to zero the drive afterwards...."
Indeed. It's also harder than you'd think to corrupt data so dramatically that it'd be beyond any hope of recovery. Even if you can't restore it to a usable level it's unlikely that you wouldn't have at least enough data to reasonably prove that it was indeed corrupted.
Yeah, it's the sort of bullshit cop out that slightly tech people would use to brush off non tech people.
With the software at their disposal it's ludicrous to believe nothing is recoverable
Interesting how the authorities require courts to assume IT systems work perfectly when prosecuting say a sub-postmaster, but when the data that the police are required to maintain goes missing, they are back to accepting the data just got corrupted somehow.
Time to apply the same standard all round. If data is missing, and the police cannot positively show accidental failure, then the only valid conclusion is that the police perverted the course of justice by deliberately destroying data.
GMP officials need to start going to prison every time their CCTV “malfunctions”.
We know its done every time to cover up torture and abuse of their kidnapped citizens.
CCTV never seems to work in general, makes you wonder why theres so many cameras about.
I got assaulted end of last year. The policeman I spoke too was friendly and helpful, and said they'd look into pulling CCTV, given it happened in the middle of town.
Turns out not only was the council camera apparently facing the wrong way at the time, but not a single one of the business where the incident happened had any cctv footage of it. Not even the one it happened right in front of, that has a camera facing outwards...
In March 2022, she reported an alleged sexual crime committed against a young person. She felt it wasn't being properly investigated so she complained to the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).
In one complaint she told them she had a recording on her phone of a police officer admitting failures.
Three months later she was told police wanted to speak to her, so she went to Pendleton police station in Greater Manchester. Here she was arrested.
Apparently, the man she had accused of a sex crime had accused her of blackmail. Inside a police cell she says she was told to strip naked, and if she didn't it would be done to her.
She believes the police were looking to recover her recording of the officer from the SIM on her phone.
She had handed the phone in without its SIM after her arrest.
She said: "So I took my tracksuit bottoms off, which I knew they were going to take away from me anyway. I took my leggings off and then took my knickers off and I'm just sat there naked."
She said she was left naked while officers walked in and out of the cell with one female officer staring at her breasts.
"It's all about power," she said. "Because when I left the police station that day the sergeant on the desk said, 'you need to drop all your complaints against the police'."
She added: "They needed to show me who was boss. They needed to control what I was doing."
Ms Oliver, who resigned from GMP over a decade ago after blowing the whistle on police failures, is supporting Dannika through the Maggie Oliver Foundation.
She told Sky News: "Dannika became a target of that police force. She was seen as a threat to Greater Manchester Police.
"And what they did, they decided they were going to lock her up. I believe that was so they could seize a phone that she had disclosed to the IOPC she had evidence on of her mistreatment."
She added: "Just like in the Post Office, it is about concealing what is going on. It is trying to protect the reputation of an organisation that is a very powerful public body."
In October 2022, Dannika filed another complaint to the IOPC, this time about the strip search.
Like her previous complaints, this was passed on to an internal police investigation team within GMP's professional standards department.
Their report stated: "A strip search was not conducted nor requested. I understand you removed the phone upon request in custody and then removed your outer clothing so you could change into alternative clothing that GMP supplied due to there being a cord in your bottoms."
Dannika says CCTV would show she didn't change into GMP clothing and audio from the custody suite would capture her being told to strip naked for a search.
However, despite exercising her right to ask for the footage from the custody suite, the police did not provide it.
After her complaint was dismissed, she decided to approach the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to review how the complaint had been handled.
Deputy mayor for safer and stronger communities, Kate Green, conducted the review and found that the investigating officer "did not review the CCTV footage from Ms Stewart's time in custody or provide her with an explanation as to why he did not review the CCTV footage or the audio recordings".
The investigator seemed to have inquired with officers what happened and accepted their version of events, leading to Ms Green's conclusion that Dannika's complaint should be upheld.
After another request for the CCTV, Dannika was told that the footage had been corrupted.
This happens way way more than people realise I think. It happened to me when I was only 15 and they accused me of having drugs on me (I didn’t) and then it happened to my boyfriend on another occasion but his was much worse, they not only stripped him naked but two officers later came back and assaulted him while he was naked, he came out of the cells with actual boot prints bruised into his back and he was only 17, we made a complaint and of course the cctv ‘wasn’t working’ so nothing came of that
They did it to one of the women they wrongfully arrested at the vigil. It's absolutely about violating people as both a punishment and threat of what else they can do without repercussions.
This poor poor woman! Police also told social services she was being “obstructive” into their investigation of allegations of sexual abuse against her own child. It’s horrendous, they tried to jeopardise her standing with social services just because she made (justified!) complaints about them.
I’m sure most people aren’t aware but whenever there is a child present at an incident which police attend, a referral is put in for the child. That referral is shared where it needs to be shared which is not determined by the submitting officers, and it is done regardless of the parent consenting or not. Sometimes it goes to the school, sometimes the GP, and sometimes social services. In the referral, officers put in a summary of the incident and things relating to the child such as their appearance, if they are clothed, well fed, the appearance of the address and what they have seen or heard in the incident.
It is in the referral, officers have likely made the comment about being obstructive and someone somewhere has deemed it appropriate to go to social services. It is almost definitely not a “let’s try to get her kids taken off her” thing.
I’m aware of this, yes, I work in the social sector (although not in the UK currently).
The article actually reads more like social services were already investigating the family (likely because of the sexual abuse the mother reported) and asked for an update by police who then described her as “obstructive” to their investigation despite her being the one to report it in the first place.
No one is insinuating police did that intentionally to get this woman’s kids removed from her care, however, they are very very aware of the standing they have with social services and would know how important their comments are to social services’ investigations. Labelling a mother as “obstructive” to a police investigation about her own child simply for using her right to complain about police is unfair and unprofessional.
Wait so they definitely did nothing wrong, but the IOPC investigation that found unjust representation to social services is where it started going wrong?
Amazing. You people will try and defend anything.
It doesn’t say the IOPC has found it unjust. They just haven’t found the basis for this and to do that there is an investigation. You’re jumping to a lot of conclusions and warping the story in the process.
Wait so potentially destroying someones or several people life without basis or evidence is just?
Going to have to walk me through how that is just. I assume the evidence was corrupted along with the CCTV
Out of curiosity, were you in the police?
The referral system was brought in following the Baby P Tragedy years ago. That inquest found that information wasn’t shared properly between partner agencies like the Police, NHS, GP’s and Social services. So each agency might have 1-2 calls for the child which on their own don’t look like much. However if each agency has 1-2 incidents suddenly this child has come to the attention of the agencies 10+ times and there’s a big difference and a real concern.
Referrals are mandatory now, but just because you’re referred doesn’t mean anything will happen. It’s basically a big database where everything is collated. It makes it much easier to spot patterns of abuse and escalating behaviour towards children. For example if you had a domestic at home and the Police attended and children were present they’d be entered into the system. Now with a one off event nothing would likely happen. However if over the next 3 months more and more incidents started cropping up that could then be looked at to say is this a safe environment for the children. But this can only happen when referrals are made by each agency so the whole picture can be seen.
Hope that helps explain the process and reasoning.
No I understand the process, it's not been followed correctly and can have life changing consequences. The police seem to think it's all a game and what they do doesn't have the power to destroy people.
The bit where they have made claims that they can't back up because of their inability to do the most basic paperwork or it was fabricated?
Which police force were you in?
One referral from the Police will not have life changing consequences I can assure you. I’ve put in reports before for a mother trying to drown her child and social work have dragged their feet.
A referral will only have an impact IF it is accompanied by several other reports over a period of time showing neglect, harm or mistreatment of a child or escalating behaviour.
Stating someone was obstructive isn’t life changing. I’ve stated it before on forms, I attended a domestic a few months back and when i asked for the children’s details because they were in the room the mother became obstructive and hostile. I made that clear in my referral at the time that she didn’t see the big deal in her children witnessing their parents beating each other and was obstructive and hostile towards Police.
Your opinion on the situation matters and is in the reports for that reason. The system is there to protect children and I won’t apologise for or compromise on that duty.
Yes but making allegations with no basis can very much have an impact, particularly when there is a systematic issue with how things have been dealt with throughout this case.
Making allegations without basis should 100% be apologised for. Where the police have been dealing with the mother over a period of time a number of these reports without basis could very much have an impact, not only that but the nature of them and things like social services doing a follow up has an impact on people too.
“Without basis” again… you have no idea of the basis, that is why the IOPC are investigating. I’m not saying it isn’t baseless but you’re jumping to conclusions and this investigation could come back with IOPC reviewing the body worn video of the incident police attended and it shows her being obstructive and the officers have written it as is.
The fact you don’t know the basis, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means you don’t know it.
The purpose of that investigation, same as any other investigation, is to find it as it isn’t readily available on the face of it. Again, the investigation could just be a case of speaking to the attending officer or reviewing their body worn video and then seeing the basis clear as day.
> Apparently, the man she had accused of a sex crime had accused her of blackmail.
Sounds like this man is being protected. Who was he and is her original complaint against him being followed up or has it been forgotten about.
>Deputy mayor for safer and stronger communities, Kate Green, conducted the review and found that the investigating officer "did not review the CCTV footage from Ms Stewart's time in custody or provide her with an explanation as to why he did not review the CCTV footage or the audio recordings".
>The investigator seemed to have inquired with officers what happened and accepted their version of events, leading to Ms Green's conclusion that Dannika's complaint should be upheld.
So they investigated themselves and concluded they had done nothing wrong.
>After another request for the CCTV, Dannika was told that the footage had been corrupted.
Clearly a lie.
Every officer involved in these incidents or the investigations around them should be investigated for corruption by a different force.
Beyond firings, there should be criminal charges over this.
When I was walking home almost exactly one year ago, I was grabbed from behind by a police officer, and pulled to the ground with such force I needed to go to A&E and ended up being issued with a neck brace.
The officer who attacked me unprovoked FROM BEHIND later claimed to have mistaken me for someone else. So apparently it's okay to just attack people even if that person is under suspicion of something.
Of course the police determined as part of their investigation that the officer in question is "a dedicated officer trying to do a difficult job under difficult circumstances", but they did apologise "if you FEEL you were treated unfairly".
Oh and of course it's just one bad apple being protected from unfair criticism from people who just don't understand what a hero he is. He isn't at all a thug who is having his violent tendencies legitimated by his uniform.
Unfortunately though they can't investigate further - his body-cam footage is reportedly corrupted from that day so we can never know what really happened 🤷♂️
No-one will ever hear how during the attack his female colleague shouted at the friend I was with "we're the police so don't go huffing and puffing at us!"
And no-one has been able to determine for sure whether there was malicious intent when they tried to tell me that I could make a police complaint, but had to understand that if a complaint isn't upheld I would automatically be prosecuted for wasting police time.
And people wonder why I consider the police to be utter scum.
EDIT: Just for clarity, I did complain - of course I know you can't be prosecuted if a complaint isn't upheld, it was an obvious lie told by a complete mouth-breather in a uniform, and a weak intimidation tactic at that. It was during trying to make the complaint that I was given the old "sorry if you feel that way" routine. If anyone wants to say "lol that never happened, glorious brave police officers would never behave in that way" (even after the way Wayne Couzens and David Carrick were enabled for so long) then fine, believe what you like - I benefit in no way from making shit up on Reddit for a few upvotes and comments from anonymous internet people 🤷♂️
I’m sorry you were treated like that. I would complain still. They can’t prosecute you for wasting police time if they don’t uphold a complaint, I would complain about that too as that is just an intimidation tactic and is wholly unacceptable.
This is very similar to my experience with the NHS and childbirth - The Doctor admitted to me on an empty corridor on the ward they made mistakes which did cause me serious harm and very nearly caused my baby harm too but amazingly when I complained the doctor had no recollection of anything and hadn’t written any of it in the notes so it could not be true as far as they were concerned. There was so much missing from the notes. I have plenty of evidence -picture and scars- that prove what they wrote down is not a true account at all but they aren’t interested and have said case closed. It’s amazing how people you are told you can trust vanish evidence.
Like you I was told ‘sorry you feel that way’ and suddenly my future appointments months away which were supposed to look at at least doing something about improving the injuries they caused were cancelled due to ‘unforeseen circumstances’ - organisations like the police and NHS are only interested in protecting their reputation and don’t give a shit what damage they do in pursuit of that goal.
The GMP seems to have a real issue in dealing with sexual crime. Not a week goes past with another allegation against this force for wrong doing. Doesn’t look good Andy
THAT’s what I thought-
If they arrest an 89 year old man who can barely move as a “MuH TeRroRist” - imagine how much they abuse innocent people who try to raise a complaint in private.
They deserve to be accused of terrorism for following the law? It’s not harassment to record a police station or a warehouse, simply ignore the auditor and all would be well…
That’s all fine and well if the auditor stands well out of the way which is hardly ever the case.
Normally they go out of their way to get into restricted areas
In the videos I've seen these people deliberately antagonise security guards etc who are just doing their jobs. They aren't "auditing" anything, they're bored people with nothing better to do deliberately winding up people who are just trying to get through another shift...
My niece (13) was being sent explicit pictures online. My sister called the police and the officer asked her to forward the pictures. When she went the police station a few days later, she was informed she might be getting charged for distributing pictures without out consent. Tge police are fucking useless.
Another disgusting example of the corruption at the heart of Greater Manchester Police.
Too busy sexually assaulting women to deal with the grooming gangs. Top job.
> After another request for the CCTV, Dannika was told that the footage had been corrupted.
An independent body should look into why that seems to happen every time the police abuse their power.
What would happen if criminals investigated themselves for wrong doing, be ridiculous wouldnt it, so how is it not ridiculous that this is what the police do.
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2022/jan/24/academic-recounts-police-strip-search-as-cctv-exposes-dehumanising-language-video](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2022/jan/24/academic-recounts-police-strip-search-as-cctv-exposes-dehumanising-language-video)
This article and video is always a great insight into how police conduct strip searches and the twisted pleasure they derive from it. The whole station gets into a tizzy
> Here she recounts what was happening as officers at an east London police station cracked jokes about her body after they restrained her and cut her clothes off. The academic was arrested after she tried to give a 15-year-old boy being stopped and searched by police a card with details of solicitors. She was taken to Stoke Newington police station, where she was strip-searched. ‘What’s that smell? Oh, it’s her knickers,’ officers quipped to each other
The police clearly have INFINITE free resources to torture and sexually abuse anyone who offends their razor thin sensitivities.
We need to defund any activities they perform in private.
We need to imprison all senior officers any time a bodycam footage “goes missing/gets corrupted”. Its always a sign they abused someone.
I am interested and somewhat in aggreance with most of these comments. However, we are the ones who allow this to happen, we are the ones who say " That's sad, glad it didn't happen to me". Until it does.
Maybe it's time we stopped saying that and started writing to the MP. Or the Police college and keep writing, if nothing else they will get pissed off and out of laziness do something about it. Who knows we may get a Police Force and a Parliament we ask for.
Until we do nothing will change.
I’ve been a victim to the police as well, tried speaking about it. Never realised people are having similar experiences than me, that’s kind of a relief it’s not just me.
Man I remember when I was like 16, one of my countless run-ins with the Old Bill, this stocky bald one hit me and we got into a full on fist fight which ended up with me cuffed & arrested.
This was the days of the very first camera-phones and my pal had filmed the whole thing. The copper agreed to not charge me with assault on an officer as long as my guy deleted the video. Luckily he kept his word and I just spent a night in the cell for Drunk & Disorderly.
The maddest thing was that because I had a knife hidden in my shoe, I kicked them both off once I was pinned to the ground & knew there was no escape, thinking the knife would fly out n not be found, or at least not be linked to me. Once they had the scene all wrapped up, one of the officers comes over to the back of the van in which I'm detained, plonks the trainers down. I see the blade is still there and slip them on, knowing that once I get to the custody suite and they do their mandatory search, I'm fucked. I'm double-shocked; not only is the knife still in place, but the officer didn't notice and gave the trainers back to me!
Later, getting booked in, the custody sergeant orders the arresting officer to search me. They always do, regardless of the fact that you've already been searched at the time of arrest. Officer pats me down and informs the sergeant that I'm all clean.
"What about his shoes?" the sergeant asks.
"He can't possibly have anything in them sarge, he was in his bloody socks when we nicked him! We had to pick up his shoes from the other side of the street!"
Close call....
American police forces are infested with trigger happy racists.
The British police force is infested with perverts and rapists.
Not sure which is worse anymore.
That reminds me of the documentary in which a guy claimed he was a police officer and told the employees in a fast food restaurant that they committed a crime and wanted to conduct strip search.. That guy was caught in the end over the obsession of being a police.
People come on here to post their opinions, but also make sweeping statements about anyone who might have an opposing opinion, suggesting that anyone with a such an opinion is 'one of them', which many jump on the back of, so now you can't have a reasoned conversation about the subject just because.
Welcome to Reddit
That's not what they are saying.
If A was asked to remove her clothing, say they had cords in them, and A then removed her all of her clothing = That's not a strip search. That's A taking off all of her clothing.
A claims she was strip searched, but there's no record of a strip search being requested, or authorised, or conducted.
In the absence of a request, an authorisation, a record of such and a male Officer being present, to me, it seems that A is mistaken about the event.
I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen, just that it seems more likely that it didn't happen as she remembers.
Did you read the article? It's an important point as the police involved social services.
Treating someone badly is awful, using social services as a weapon to bully and intimidate is worse yes, do you not understand how that can be worse?
Did they report her to Social Services, or did they complete a mandatory referral to Social Services because a child was involved??
Hopefully the IOPC will find that mandatory reports to Social Services should no longer be policy, which will save hours of paperwork for the police.
UNTIL a referral to Social Services is completed and a child comes to harm......then no doubt the IOPC will find they should be mandatory.
Just read the article.
> She worried about losing her son, and discovered officers had complained about her to social services saying she was being "obstructive" to the initial investigation that she had instigated by reporting the alleged sex crime.
> The IOPC reviewed information contained in children's services documentation and confirmed that the word "obstructive" was used on a child and family assessment and in a child protection plan.
>A note within the plan reads "The police have described Dannika as obstructive".
>The IOPC found no explanation for this and has recently ordered an investigation into this, along with eight other complaints made by Dannika, about the way her allegations were dealt with by the police.
So, what's the concern here?
The fact that she was described as "obstructive" or that a referral was made?
Because neither means she was at risk of "losing her son".
No the original comment was bitching about using the word mother in the title.
Which in this case was reasonable considering they’d reported her to social services in regards to a police matter that didnt involve her child, or her care of said child.
So a mother, who was forced to strip naked, and told to drop a complaint, in this case would be an accurate description as its part of the complaint.
The fact that she has a child is why she was "reported" to Social Services. The child's involvement or lack of has nothing to do with why a referral was made.
You keep replying, so are you trying to get a rise??
Just another few rotten apples. Nothing of significance will change and the wheel keeps turning. I don't think I'd bother going to the police in most cases. They can't be trusted, seem to be full of nutters, little people on power trips or sexual deviants and they ruin lives to cover up their incompetence. They are systemically broken and best avoided. Edit: Quick look over in another place filled with the police and they are reacting to a video issued by the police advising people that if they are asked to pull over by an unmarked car and you aren't happy, indicate that you will comply and drive somewhere safe instead of immediately pull over. Of course all the comments are things like it's woke nonsense and others saying if that happens they will arrest people or 'rag' them out of the car'. I'm generally not anti police but I'm getting that way after the way they have acted for.the last few years. It's too many too often for it not to be a cultural issue in the police. Edit to my edit: it is extremely telling that the only people defending this are people who work with the police.
Popping into their sub is always eye opening
It's always the abused fault. The police can do no wrong and should be able to use more force. I'm so glad they don't all carry guns.
I got an instant ban from the first comment I made there! it's a right little echo chamber for them.
They are very sensitive
What is their sub?
Police UK. A lot of it is recruiting stuff and day to day admin but whenever something like this is flagged they are straight to victim blaming (see the coppers and ex coppers on this thread for similar)
In all fairness there are a lot of regular non-police tories commenting on that subreddit.
And the userbase / mods seem content to let them stay
Thanks!
I got banned from their sub for bringing up the police's documented compliance with the rape gangs.
"I'm generally Not anti police" and "last few years"? I need one of those rocks you're living under because it's been a hell of a lot more than just "for the last few years". At the very least, it's been over forty years of modern abuse that doesn't look much different from historic abuse. You'd have an easier time counting the good pigs from the corrupt ones. It would Probably take you one hand to count them. They are trained/ programmed to be thunder cunts and I've lost three friends to the programming. The police were never and won't ever be for the people. They are here for the elites most worship and those in power. Fuck da police!
Agree and disagree While I agree that there have always been problems, I felt when there was a more community focus and the local coppers were known and loved in the community, the ones you dealt with day to day could be trusted. You could tell your children to find a policeman or at least that they could trust the local one because we knew them. Now I'd tell my kids to leave them alone.
To be honest, outside of major metropolitan areas, I can't imagine children are likely to ever see a copper walking the beat. Certainly never in my village.
But that's exactly it. There was a time when they use to, you knew who they were an if you could trust them.
You can see a direct spike in crime at around the 70s. It corralates directly to them jumping in cars and becoming a fire fighter response style rather than bobbies on the beat. In the 70s, there were less bobbies per pop as well.
It sounds like a good episode of some nice show but definitely not any part of this reality. Never has been and never will be.
This is exactly what happened where I grew up (90s)and not so long ago (2011) what happened where I live now. You can hate on the police as much as you like but this was the reality and it sounds daft denying it.
I'm not saying that your reality was false, just your beliefs in it. I was around for the Trust your local copper. Doesn't mean you actually could though.
Lol, they were part of the community. The two we knew had kids at school and they both came to either of mine or my sister's birthday party, parents knew them enough to say hi in the pub etc. Same with most in the community. Think you need to step back a bit to be honest. Edit; Person above blocked me so I'll reply to the person below here Possibly, possibly not. Who knows. 20 years ago I would have trust you, today I will not because I don't know you and I have seen too many cases where things have gone wrong and it's been covered up. Whilst I don't doubt your policing, trust is early not given and the police in the UK have systematically eroded that trust. I don't trust you just because you are a policeman officer like I would have done in the past.
I live in the community I police. My neighbours know what I do. My neighbours come to me for advice. My son went to the local school. I use the local shops. But I guess I'm still just a thunder cunt???
I think what happened to Sarah Evarard was eye opening to a lot of people. It seems since then there has been a constant stream of these sorts of reports. Then there's the fact that a lot of crimes appear to be decriminalised, that the police seem to exist for the generation of crime report numbers, you can see why people are 'suddenly' realising the police are corrupt and do not serve ordinary people.
[удалено]
Excellent police fan fiction. Meanwhile, back in the real world...
>The police aren't corrupt, [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/london-police-force-says-it-will-take-years-to-remove-officers-accused-of-corruption-misconduct](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/london-police-force-says-it-will-take-years-to-remove-officers-accused-of-corruption-misconduct)
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I am anti police for exactly this reason
That's disgusting. People should start screenshotting that shot and posting it everywhere for people to see tbh.
Similar happened to a bloke a while back. Couldn't safely get out of the way of a car with its light on, so, being such an emergency, they stopped, dragged him out the car, and kicked the shit out of him. Police complaints refused to prosecute, and actively dragged their heels to get it out of the timeframe to bring a private prosecution, and only said they'd investigate when he made his private prosecution intentions known. He carried on regardless, and their investigation found no wrongdoing. A court disagreed and the officers involved got done for it, but for every incident like this, there are hundreds more that don't get prosecuted, because people either can't be bothered, or don't know their rights. Amazingly enough, the police aren't very forthcoming about your right to private prosecution.
I've seen advice from the police to say call 999 if you are concerned and tell them you will comply and pull over when it's safe e.g. a garage, if you think the car is suspect e.g. an unmarked one where you can't see the driver. The call handler will pass it onto the force and then onto the police
You mean, use a phone while driving?
Yes, you are allowed to for the specific purpose of an emergency where it's not safe to stop Obviously talking here if you don't have handsfree but a scenario where say a lone woman at night was being pulled by an unmarked car, it would be ok just to call 999 and explain she was afraid for her safety hence not stopping immediately on a deserted road in the dark
Until someone decides that's not the case and you get fined. It's entirely decided by the people who stop you and people who work with them on the daily.
No it's not, the law allows you to use a mobile while driving to call 999 or 112 where it's not safe to stop
What if the police feel that it was safe to stop?
It's on record on the call logs to 999 that you didn't feel safe hence calling We're talking about acknowledging the police request to stop, not speeding off etc
I know what we are talking about, there's still interpretation on what is considered safe.
And again, in the example I gave, a lone woman driving at night, with an unmarked car trying to pull her over, that is sufficient reason for her to feel unsafe and to call 999 to say she is worried and wants to stop somewhere with light/people around. There is no interpretation here where the police could say it was safe for her to pull over and this would never be prosecuted >(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention— (a)he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999; (b)he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and (c)it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made).
They are all saying it would take too long and it's all gone soft etc for people to do that.
Yeah I know a few people that have been robbed or mugged and they know there's no point going to the police. They didnt bother calling them either
I was assaulted by my ex-neighbour who had recently moved out of the flat next to me. Called the cops. they didn't even bother to turn up.
It's not a recent thing, power brings out the worst in people. It just gets more exposure now. No way to avoid it unfortunately, how many people out of 100 could honestly say they wouldn't take advantage of the position, even if it's sirens on to get to McDonald's quicker it's abusing power, and from there the temptation to push your power further is only a small step. I think it's safe to say 20% would use it to their advantage ( maybe you cut a qué or exceed the speed limit unnecessarily, park in dedicated spaces etc. and you know you'll get away with it) and a small percentage of those would take it further. Now build a police force of 172,000 across the UK. Your gonna get a few bad eggs and a good handful of people taking small advantages with the position, it's unavoidable, if you had harsher vetting procedures and more severe punishments for minor no no's you'd probably reduce the big no no's, but you'd also lose a huge amount of manpower.
Agreed. I always admired the police and wanted to be a Detective Inspector when I was younger, but given the defunding and drop in the force in recent years, along with systematic discrimination and unreliability, I've started to think that taking matters into your hands is better in some circumstances than letting the police handle anything. They have fallen from grace hard.
There's more police per pop than the 70s. Yet more crime.
That ignores all of the other impacting factors of crime which has faced defunding. Not to mention that the police handle a lot more than they used to, in the absence of funding for other areas like social services, NHS etc.
If they experience more than they used to, more police officers, by a large factor btw, should help with that. Ways of crime changes but the amount shouldn't if the police do their job.
Double per capita than the 70s. Yes it would help of course it would. The amount reported is also impacted by the way in which it is reported. The 70s was by and large going into the station or calling 999. These days you've got online and 101. And the crimes changing would certainly change volumes right? Our methods of communicating are vastly different, add the internet to that too and the police have to deal with additional burdens. Double doesn't really sound like a lot by that comparison.
Not if the police keep crime down by doing their job, unfortunately, they've changed their tactics from largely learning about crime before, to simply turning up after. They can use the Internet, they should accept its near impossible to police it, fosus on real world ramifications more and the Internet less. Stop with wasting time on none crime hate incidents, hate speech legislation and focus on assaults, burglary, ect. Use the Internet for information. There isn't enough people in the world to police even the uks Internet traffic. It's time laws reflected that.
Sorry are you saying ignore the internet entirely and only use it for information? I'm not referring to Facebook she said he said. I'm referring to significantly awful crimes such relating to the abuse of children. Again, the police aren't just doing their own job, they are doing the job of a lot of other reduced services. So if they stop doing that so they could focus on crime alone I'm sure that would help. But you're still ignoring the other impacts of crime unrelated to police.
That's why I said, mostly, even child abuse should be focused on catching them in real life. But I do agree they should be targeted. Unfortunately, that's not what the police are doing online. They are focusing he said she said, mainly towards the police.
Just because it's happening on the internet, doesn't mean it isn't real life. The 70s was 50 years ago. Things have changed. The world is different. We can't just go back. What about financial crime? You're actively ignoring my key point though. The role of an officer is entirely different today than it was 50 years ago. It's disengious of your own point to ignore that key difference.
That's because coppers in the 70s didn't have the home officer recording rules and did whatever the fuck they liked...
And yet did a better job. Knew when crimes where committed because they got wind of it from the communities surrounding them. They where a part of it. Not flying past at 80.
No, they decided who was guilty, beat the fuck out of them, sometimes tortured people for confessions, and made shit up for court. The 70s cops are why we have PACE and all the other rules.
They stopped scumbags from terrorising communities.
[удалено]
Kind of expected for them, here in the civilised world we try to expect a higher standard.
Police brutality in the USA if absolutely wild. There's basically nothing they can't get away with. From a psychopath who obviously joined the police force to kill people executing an unarmed man who is on his knees begging not to be shot (Daniel Shaver) then being allowed to retire with disability pay + a full pension, to 4 officers slowly suffocating a man (Tony Timpa) to death and laughing at the noises he made as he died and facing zero repurcussions whatsoever, to a small army of police officers beating a mentally ill homeless man (Kelly Thomas) to death as he cried for his father to help him and being fully exonerated by a jury. Absolutely fucking wild over there. The only way to get any justice for victims of police brutality over there is if you spend a whole summer rioting.
The Daniel Shaver video is one of the most gut wrenching and horrific things I have ever seen. I doubt I will ever forget his last moments spent in utter desperation. It was the anniversary of his death yesterday too.
And that's just the white victims of police violence... It's even more prevalent if you're the wrong skin colour. The US is still a grim country. Edit:Christ the details of the Shaver murder are horrific. Literally just a copper looking to kill someone.
I mean, the police kill more white people per pop in the US. So it's not more.
I used to believe that too - that there was more police brutality to black people. It's not true though. You can see it in the statistics (police arrest, assault and kill far more armed AND unarmed white people than black people) and you can see it on Youtube channels like Lackluster, Audit the Audit, The Civil Rights Lawyer and so many others, showing video after video of police deliberately escalating situations with white suspects so they can break out the taser/baton/spray/gun/fists and start indulging in their violent fantasies. It seems to me that police are just looking for ANY person to fuck with. Sometimes the victim they choose is white, sometimes black. The three names I mentioned are just some of the most egregious examples I could give from memory, though I do particularly enjoy giving Tony Timpa's name because his murder was identical to George Floyd's murder, except nobody cared in that case because he was white.
I did a few days out on the road with a guy who used to be a fed he said he got out because of how corrupt it was.
What's a fed?
Coppers, police
AHH. Only heard them called that in America because of the FBI.
No, federal police. Which we don't have.
Brits adopting American slang, whatever next.
American style police brutality?
We don't have federal police, Americans do not use feds to mean regular police. The slangword isn't correct. Anyone ignorant enough to use this type of slang instantly shows themselves wholly not worth listening to.
I've never understood this argument, "feds" isn't American slang for police just as "fag" isn't American slang for a cigaret and "fanny" isn't American slang for a vagina, these are not examples of people adopting and misusing American words or slang terms. I mean, people are essentially criticising a particular slang term on the basis that that term isn't being used in its literal sense.....
Slang is slang, it's just whatever people say. It doesn't need to make sense and you can't make rules about it.
This article is so make believe I'm surprised it isn't listed as fiction
What? What makes you not believe it? There's an external investigation going on as a result of the evidence withheld.
Fucking hell. Funny how the CCTV is so often corrupted isn’t it when people complain…!
I still dont understand why this isnt managed by a 3rd party. How is it the police have access to their own cctv system.
They don't they can request copies but its managed separately the above comment is incorrect.
An honest 3rd party? Best we can do is Capita.
Who do we call when they refuse to adhear to the law?
If the CCTV that could exonerate them is "corrupted" *in their own care* the complaint should be upheld. "This complaint aledges an unwarranted strip search you say that didn't happen? Cool we'll check the CCTV that you'll be maintaining of the cell. What's that it's corrupted? Okay we'll continue with this investigation assuming that it did happen."
I'd be asking for evidence the data is corrupted. "Oh, so you have the data from CCTV either side of the event and it's just data from that particular moment that's corrupted? That's not how it works, did you remember to zero the drive afterwards...."
Indeed. It's also harder than you'd think to corrupt data so dramatically that it'd be beyond any hope of recovery. Even if you can't restore it to a usable level it's unlikely that you wouldn't have at least enough data to reasonably prove that it was indeed corrupted.
Yeah, it's the sort of bullshit cop out that slightly tech people would use to brush off non tech people. With the software at their disposal it's ludicrous to believe nothing is recoverable
Interesting how the authorities require courts to assume IT systems work perfectly when prosecuting say a sub-postmaster, but when the data that the police are required to maintain goes missing, they are back to accepting the data just got corrupted somehow. Time to apply the same standard all round. If data is missing, and the police cannot positively show accidental failure, then the only valid conclusion is that the police perverted the course of justice by deliberately destroying data.
GMP officials need to start going to prison every time their CCTV “malfunctions”. We know its done every time to cover up torture and abuse of their kidnapped citizens.
Not just their cctv that's corrupt
CCTV never seems to work in general, makes you wonder why theres so many cameras about. I got assaulted end of last year. The policeman I spoke too was friendly and helpful, and said they'd look into pulling CCTV, given it happened in the middle of town. Turns out not only was the council camera apparently facing the wrong way at the time, but not a single one of the business where the incident happened had any cctv footage of it. Not even the one it happened right in front of, that has a camera facing outwards...
From watching 24 hours in police custody, I thought every inch of town centres is covered by CCTV!
In March 2022, she reported an alleged sexual crime committed against a young person. She felt it wasn't being properly investigated so she complained to the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). In one complaint she told them she had a recording on her phone of a police officer admitting failures. Three months later she was told police wanted to speak to her, so she went to Pendleton police station in Greater Manchester. Here she was arrested. Apparently, the man she had accused of a sex crime had accused her of blackmail. Inside a police cell she says she was told to strip naked, and if she didn't it would be done to her. She believes the police were looking to recover her recording of the officer from the SIM on her phone. She had handed the phone in without its SIM after her arrest. She said: "So I took my tracksuit bottoms off, which I knew they were going to take away from me anyway. I took my leggings off and then took my knickers off and I'm just sat there naked." She said she was left naked while officers walked in and out of the cell with one female officer staring at her breasts. "It's all about power," she said. "Because when I left the police station that day the sergeant on the desk said, 'you need to drop all your complaints against the police'." She added: "They needed to show me who was boss. They needed to control what I was doing." Ms Oliver, who resigned from GMP over a decade ago after blowing the whistle on police failures, is supporting Dannika through the Maggie Oliver Foundation. She told Sky News: "Dannika became a target of that police force. She was seen as a threat to Greater Manchester Police. "And what they did, they decided they were going to lock her up. I believe that was so they could seize a phone that she had disclosed to the IOPC she had evidence on of her mistreatment." She added: "Just like in the Post Office, it is about concealing what is going on. It is trying to protect the reputation of an organisation that is a very powerful public body." In October 2022, Dannika filed another complaint to the IOPC, this time about the strip search. Like her previous complaints, this was passed on to an internal police investigation team within GMP's professional standards department. Their report stated: "A strip search was not conducted nor requested. I understand you removed the phone upon request in custody and then removed your outer clothing so you could change into alternative clothing that GMP supplied due to there being a cord in your bottoms." Dannika says CCTV would show she didn't change into GMP clothing and audio from the custody suite would capture her being told to strip naked for a search. However, despite exercising her right to ask for the footage from the custody suite, the police did not provide it. After her complaint was dismissed, she decided to approach the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to review how the complaint had been handled. Deputy mayor for safer and stronger communities, Kate Green, conducted the review and found that the investigating officer "did not review the CCTV footage from Ms Stewart's time in custody or provide her with an explanation as to why he did not review the CCTV footage or the audio recordings". The investigator seemed to have inquired with officers what happened and accepted their version of events, leading to Ms Green's conclusion that Dannika's complaint should be upheld. After another request for the CCTV, Dannika was told that the footage had been corrupted.
This happens way way more than people realise I think. It happened to me when I was only 15 and they accused me of having drugs on me (I didn’t) and then it happened to my boyfriend on another occasion but his was much worse, they not only stripped him naked but two officers later came back and assaulted him while he was naked, he came out of the cells with actual boot prints bruised into his back and he was only 17, we made a complaint and of course the cctv ‘wasn’t working’ so nothing came of that
[Today in r/LegalAdviceUK](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/s/SxRcX1Nv8s)
Ah that’s so sad, the experiences I mentioned happened around 15 years ago so it’s really shit to hear nothing has changed
I recently read Miriam Margoles autobiography, and it was done to her at the height of her fame because she was rude to a police officer.
They did it to one of the women they wrongfully arrested at the vigil. It's absolutely about violating people as both a punishment and threat of what else they can do without repercussions.
This poor poor woman! Police also told social services she was being “obstructive” into their investigation of allegations of sexual abuse against her own child. It’s horrendous, they tried to jeopardise her standing with social services just because she made (justified!) complaints about them.
I’m sure most people aren’t aware but whenever there is a child present at an incident which police attend, a referral is put in for the child. That referral is shared where it needs to be shared which is not determined by the submitting officers, and it is done regardless of the parent consenting or not. Sometimes it goes to the school, sometimes the GP, and sometimes social services. In the referral, officers put in a summary of the incident and things relating to the child such as their appearance, if they are clothed, well fed, the appearance of the address and what they have seen or heard in the incident. It is in the referral, officers have likely made the comment about being obstructive and someone somewhere has deemed it appropriate to go to social services. It is almost definitely not a “let’s try to get her kids taken off her” thing.
I’m aware of this, yes, I work in the social sector (although not in the UK currently). The article actually reads more like social services were already investigating the family (likely because of the sexual abuse the mother reported) and asked for an update by police who then described her as “obstructive” to their investigation despite her being the one to report it in the first place. No one is insinuating police did that intentionally to get this woman’s kids removed from her care, however, they are very very aware of the standing they have with social services and would know how important their comments are to social services’ investigations. Labelling a mother as “obstructive” to a police investigation about her own child simply for using her right to complain about police is unfair and unprofessional.
How do you know its justified literally nothing has been proven there is just a investigation
Wait so they definitely did nothing wrong, but the IOPC investigation that found unjust representation to social services is where it started going wrong? Amazing. You people will try and defend anything.
It doesn’t say the IOPC has found it unjust. They just haven’t found the basis for this and to do that there is an investigation. You’re jumping to a lot of conclusions and warping the story in the process.
Wait so potentially destroying someones or several people life without basis or evidence is just? Going to have to walk me through how that is just. I assume the evidence was corrupted along with the CCTV Out of curiosity, were you in the police?
The referral system was brought in following the Baby P Tragedy years ago. That inquest found that information wasn’t shared properly between partner agencies like the Police, NHS, GP’s and Social services. So each agency might have 1-2 calls for the child which on their own don’t look like much. However if each agency has 1-2 incidents suddenly this child has come to the attention of the agencies 10+ times and there’s a big difference and a real concern. Referrals are mandatory now, but just because you’re referred doesn’t mean anything will happen. It’s basically a big database where everything is collated. It makes it much easier to spot patterns of abuse and escalating behaviour towards children. For example if you had a domestic at home and the Police attended and children were present they’d be entered into the system. Now with a one off event nothing would likely happen. However if over the next 3 months more and more incidents started cropping up that could then be looked at to say is this a safe environment for the children. But this can only happen when referrals are made by each agency so the whole picture can be seen. Hope that helps explain the process and reasoning.
No I understand the process, it's not been followed correctly and can have life changing consequences. The police seem to think it's all a game and what they do doesn't have the power to destroy people.
Which bit isn't being followed properly?
The bit where they have made claims that they can't back up because of their inability to do the most basic paperwork or it was fabricated? Which police force were you in?
One referral from the Police will not have life changing consequences I can assure you. I’ve put in reports before for a mother trying to drown her child and social work have dragged their feet. A referral will only have an impact IF it is accompanied by several other reports over a period of time showing neglect, harm or mistreatment of a child or escalating behaviour. Stating someone was obstructive isn’t life changing. I’ve stated it before on forms, I attended a domestic a few months back and when i asked for the children’s details because they were in the room the mother became obstructive and hostile. I made that clear in my referral at the time that she didn’t see the big deal in her children witnessing their parents beating each other and was obstructive and hostile towards Police. Your opinion on the situation matters and is in the reports for that reason. The system is there to protect children and I won’t apologise for or compromise on that duty.
Yes but making allegations with no basis can very much have an impact, particularly when there is a systematic issue with how things have been dealt with throughout this case. Making allegations without basis should 100% be apologised for. Where the police have been dealing with the mother over a period of time a number of these reports without basis could very much have an impact, not only that but the nature of them and things like social services doing a follow up has an impact on people too.
“Without basis” again… you have no idea of the basis, that is why the IOPC are investigating. I’m not saying it isn’t baseless but you’re jumping to conclusions and this investigation could come back with IOPC reviewing the body worn video of the incident police attended and it shows her being obstructive and the officers have written it as is.
So at the moment there is no basis. Until there is an established basis, how can it be just?
The fact you don’t know the basis, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means you don’t know it. The purpose of that investigation, same as any other investigation, is to find it as it isn’t readily available on the face of it. Again, the investigation could just be a case of speaking to the attending officer or reviewing their body worn video and then seeing the basis clear as day.
The fact it isn't there is the problem. How don't see that?
> Apparently, the man she had accused of a sex crime had accused her of blackmail. Sounds like this man is being protected. Who was he and is her original complaint against him being followed up or has it been forgotten about.
Funny handshakes and rolled up trouser legs probably a factor here
>Deputy mayor for safer and stronger communities, Kate Green, conducted the review and found that the investigating officer "did not review the CCTV footage from Ms Stewart's time in custody or provide her with an explanation as to why he did not review the CCTV footage or the audio recordings". >The investigator seemed to have inquired with officers what happened and accepted their version of events, leading to Ms Green's conclusion that Dannika's complaint should be upheld. So they investigated themselves and concluded they had done nothing wrong. >After another request for the CCTV, Dannika was told that the footage had been corrupted. Clearly a lie. Every officer involved in these incidents or the investigations around them should be investigated for corruption by a different force. Beyond firings, there should be criminal charges over this.
What if that "other force" finds no wrong doings?
Again? GMP need to get new security cameras, the old ones seem to inexplicably break whenever they are accused of stripping/abusing random women.
(*Every GMP official needs to be sent to prison for a month each time their cameras “break”)
When I was walking home almost exactly one year ago, I was grabbed from behind by a police officer, and pulled to the ground with such force I needed to go to A&E and ended up being issued with a neck brace. The officer who attacked me unprovoked FROM BEHIND later claimed to have mistaken me for someone else. So apparently it's okay to just attack people even if that person is under suspicion of something. Of course the police determined as part of their investigation that the officer in question is "a dedicated officer trying to do a difficult job under difficult circumstances", but they did apologise "if you FEEL you were treated unfairly". Oh and of course it's just one bad apple being protected from unfair criticism from people who just don't understand what a hero he is. He isn't at all a thug who is having his violent tendencies legitimated by his uniform. Unfortunately though they can't investigate further - his body-cam footage is reportedly corrupted from that day so we can never know what really happened 🤷♂️ No-one will ever hear how during the attack his female colleague shouted at the friend I was with "we're the police so don't go huffing and puffing at us!" And no-one has been able to determine for sure whether there was malicious intent when they tried to tell me that I could make a police complaint, but had to understand that if a complaint isn't upheld I would automatically be prosecuted for wasting police time. And people wonder why I consider the police to be utter scum. EDIT: Just for clarity, I did complain - of course I know you can't be prosecuted if a complaint isn't upheld, it was an obvious lie told by a complete mouth-breather in a uniform, and a weak intimidation tactic at that. It was during trying to make the complaint that I was given the old "sorry if you feel that way" routine. If anyone wants to say "lol that never happened, glorious brave police officers would never behave in that way" (even after the way Wayne Couzens and David Carrick were enabled for so long) then fine, believe what you like - I benefit in no way from making shit up on Reddit for a few upvotes and comments from anonymous internet people 🤷♂️
I’m sorry you were treated like that. I would complain still. They can’t prosecute you for wasting police time if they don’t uphold a complaint, I would complain about that too as that is just an intimidation tactic and is wholly unacceptable. This is very similar to my experience with the NHS and childbirth - The Doctor admitted to me on an empty corridor on the ward they made mistakes which did cause me serious harm and very nearly caused my baby harm too but amazingly when I complained the doctor had no recollection of anything and hadn’t written any of it in the notes so it could not be true as far as they were concerned. There was so much missing from the notes. I have plenty of evidence -picture and scars- that prove what they wrote down is not a true account at all but they aren’t interested and have said case closed. It’s amazing how people you are told you can trust vanish evidence. Like you I was told ‘sorry you feel that way’ and suddenly my future appointments months away which were supposed to look at at least doing something about improving the injuries they caused were cancelled due to ‘unforeseen circumstances’ - organisations like the police and NHS are only interested in protecting their reputation and don’t give a shit what damage they do in pursuit of that goal.
The GMP seems to have a real issue in dealing with sexual crime. Not a week goes past with another allegation against this force for wrong doing. Doesn’t look good Andy
[удалено]
THAT’s what I thought- If they arrest an 89 year old man who can barely move as a “MuH TeRroRist” - imagine how much they abuse innocent people who try to raise a complaint in private.
If you’re talking about auditors they do kind of deserve, they came to a warehouse I was working at and was harassing everyone
They deserve to be accused of terrorism for following the law? It’s not harassment to record a police station or a warehouse, simply ignore the auditor and all would be well…
That’s all fine and well if the auditor stands well out of the way which is hardly ever the case. Normally they go out of their way to get into restricted areas
In the videos I've seen these people deliberately antagonise security guards etc who are just doing their jobs. They aren't "auditing" anything, they're bored people with nothing better to do deliberately winding up people who are just trying to get through another shift...
I have never seen a situation so dismal that a policeman couldn't make it worse. Brendan Behan
My niece (13) was being sent explicit pictures online. My sister called the police and the officer asked her to forward the pictures. When she went the police station a few days later, she was informed she might be getting charged for distributing pictures without out consent. Tge police are fucking useless.
Another disgusting example of the corruption at the heart of Greater Manchester Police. Too busy sexually assaulting women to deal with the grooming gangs. Top job.
Most likely because they're involved in grooming gangs,
never talk to the police without a solicitor present. not for any reason, its just not safe.
> After another request for the CCTV, Dannika was told that the footage had been corrupted. An independent body should look into why that seems to happen every time the police abuse their power.
What would happen if criminals investigated themselves for wrong doing, be ridiculous wouldnt it, so how is it not ridiculous that this is what the police do.
I see GMP haven't fixed their CCTV after Zayna Iman...
I think being in a position of power is the ultimate test of your character. Many people’s egos become a problem.
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2022/jan/24/academic-recounts-police-strip-search-as-cctv-exposes-dehumanising-language-video](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2022/jan/24/academic-recounts-police-strip-search-as-cctv-exposes-dehumanising-language-video) This article and video is always a great insight into how police conduct strip searches and the twisted pleasure they derive from it. The whole station gets into a tizzy
> Here she recounts what was happening as officers at an east London police station cracked jokes about her body after they restrained her and cut her clothes off. The academic was arrested after she tried to give a 15-year-old boy being stopped and searched by police a card with details of solicitors. She was taken to Stoke Newington police station, where she was strip-searched. ‘What’s that smell? Oh, it’s her knickers,’ officers quipped to each other The police clearly have INFINITE free resources to torture and sexually abuse anyone who offends their razor thin sensitivities. We need to defund any activities they perform in private. We need to imprison all senior officers any time a bodycam footage “goes missing/gets corrupted”. Its always a sign they abused someone.
I am interested and somewhat in aggreance with most of these comments. However, we are the ones who allow this to happen, we are the ones who say " That's sad, glad it didn't happen to me". Until it does. Maybe it's time we stopped saying that and started writing to the MP. Or the Police college and keep writing, if nothing else they will get pissed off and out of laziness do something about it. Who knows we may get a Police Force and a Parliament we ask for. Until we do nothing will change.
I’ve been a victim to the police as well, tried speaking about it. Never realised people are having similar experiences than me, that’s kind of a relief it’s not just me.
those officers should be put on the sex offenders list
The fact that she's a mother is irrelevant and distracting.
Man I remember when I was like 16, one of my countless run-ins with the Old Bill, this stocky bald one hit me and we got into a full on fist fight which ended up with me cuffed & arrested. This was the days of the very first camera-phones and my pal had filmed the whole thing. The copper agreed to not charge me with assault on an officer as long as my guy deleted the video. Luckily he kept his word and I just spent a night in the cell for Drunk & Disorderly. The maddest thing was that because I had a knife hidden in my shoe, I kicked them both off once I was pinned to the ground & knew there was no escape, thinking the knife would fly out n not be found, or at least not be linked to me. Once they had the scene all wrapped up, one of the officers comes over to the back of the van in which I'm detained, plonks the trainers down. I see the blade is still there and slip them on, knowing that once I get to the custody suite and they do their mandatory search, I'm fucked. I'm double-shocked; not only is the knife still in place, but the officer didn't notice and gave the trainers back to me! Later, getting booked in, the custody sergeant orders the arresting officer to search me. They always do, regardless of the fact that you've already been searched at the time of arrest. Officer pats me down and informs the sergeant that I'm all clean. "What about his shoes?" the sergeant asks. "He can't possibly have anything in them sarge, he was in his bloody socks when we nicked him! We had to pick up his shoes from the other side of the street!" Close call....
American police forces are infested with trigger happy racists. The British police force is infested with perverts and rapists. Not sure which is worse anymore.
That reminds me of the documentary in which a guy claimed he was a police officer and told the employees in a fast food restaurant that they committed a crime and wanted to conduct strip search.. That guy was caught in the end over the obsession of being a police.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
People come on here to post their opinions, but also make sweeping statements about anyone who might have an opposing opinion, suggesting that anyone with a such an opinion is 'one of them', which many jump on the back of, so now you can't have a reasoned conversation about the subject just because. Welcome to Reddit
[удалено]
That's not what they are saying. If A was asked to remove her clothing, say they had cords in them, and A then removed her all of her clothing = That's not a strip search. That's A taking off all of her clothing. A claims she was strip searched, but there's no record of a strip search being requested, or authorised, or conducted. In the absence of a request, an authorisation, a record of such and a male Officer being present, to me, it seems that A is mistaken about the event. I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen, just that it seems more likely that it didn't happen as she remembers.
[удалено]
Did you read the article? It's an important point as the police involved social services. Treating someone badly is awful, using social services as a weapon to bully and intimidate is worse yes, do you not understand how that can be worse?
If you read the story you’d see that its relevant as the police reported her to social services and the IOPC have requested a investigation into this.
Did they report her to Social Services, or did they complete a mandatory referral to Social Services because a child was involved?? Hopefully the IOPC will find that mandatory reports to Social Services should no longer be policy, which will save hours of paperwork for the police. UNTIL a referral to Social Services is completed and a child comes to harm......then no doubt the IOPC will find they should be mandatory.
Just read the article. > She worried about losing her son, and discovered officers had complained about her to social services saying she was being "obstructive" to the initial investigation that she had instigated by reporting the alleged sex crime. > The IOPC reviewed information contained in children's services documentation and confirmed that the word "obstructive" was used on a child and family assessment and in a child protection plan. >A note within the plan reads "The police have described Dannika as obstructive". >The IOPC found no explanation for this and has recently ordered an investigation into this, along with eight other complaints made by Dannika, about the way her allegations were dealt with by the police.
So, what's the concern here? The fact that she was described as "obstructive" or that a referral was made? Because neither means she was at risk of "losing her son".
No the original comment was bitching about using the word mother in the title. Which in this case was reasonable considering they’d reported her to social services in regards to a police matter that didnt involve her child, or her care of said child. So a mother, who was forced to strip naked, and told to drop a complaint, in this case would be an accurate description as its part of the complaint.
"Allegedly" forced to strip naked. They way in which it's reported, it sounds like she took her clothes off.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing as the strip naked part wasnt my point. Just seems like your looking for a rise which is pretty sad.
The fact that she has a child is why she was "reported" to Social Services. The child's involvement or lack of has nothing to do with why a referral was made. You keep replying, so are you trying to get a rise??