More Met police racism

[ReverendCounter]

Strip search of 15 year old girl "search should never have happened, was unjustified and racism "was likely to have been an influencing factor". "

What the fk?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/15/strip-...

NO DRUGS FOUND in case it needs to be said - she's now gone "from a "happy-go-lucky girl to a timid recluse that hardly speaks", who now self-harms and needs therapy. "





Link to the report, kindly provided by otolith:

https://chscp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Ch...

Mod edit: Title amended to remove offensive language

Edited by ReverendCounter on Wednesday 16th March 13:18

[vikingaero]

The justification for the search was that she smelt of cannabis whether she was black, white, yellow, green or lesser spotted.

The Officers breached the protocol by not searching her in the presence of an appropriate adult.

[_dobbo_]

I had a bet with myself that the first reply to this thread would completely dismiss the findings of the report, sad to say I won the bet

Benefit of the doubt says you didn't actually read the link as it's behind a paywall. Have a different link:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10616467/...

[vikingaero]

I read the BBC article.

[_dobbo_]

So you've read the article and your conclusion is the findings of the report are wrong - and the only failing here was that there should in fact have been more adults in the room when an entirely innocent girl was strip searched by police officers in a school setting?

[vikingaero]

Your initial post quoted the article which said the search was "unjustified". Plenty of officers justify searches based on people smelling of cannabis or drink drivers smelling of alcohol. You don't "not" search people because of the school setting. I agree the search was not conducted appropriately.

From the various news outlets I've read it seems that the family and Hackey are pretty vocal on the that there was racist bias.

[B235r]

Am I meant to care about this? Nope sorry, female searched by two females really don't see the problem & of course she's now traumatised for life just long enough for her family to get some competition

[xx99xx]

vikingaero said:

The justification for the search was that she smelt of cannabis whether she was black, white, yellow, green or lesser spotted.

The Officers breached the protocol by not searching her in the presence of an appropriate adult.

And possibly the school failed in their duty of care to insist that a member of staff was present in the room?

"Investigators found that school staff deferred to the police's authority and "should have been more challenging".

This has been accepted by the school, with one staff member saying: "I have never known, nor would I condone, a strip-search of a young person on a school site."

[Prizam]

vikingaero said:

Your initial post quoted the article which said the search was "unjustified". Plenty of officers justify searches based on people smelling of cannabis or drink drivers smelling of alcohol. You don't "not" search people because of the school setting. I agree the search was not conducted appropriately.

From the various news outlets I've read it seems that the family and Hackey are pretty vocal on the that there was racist bias.

Yep, this.

Absolutley nothing to do with the colour of her skin.

[monthou]

How many parents here would be happy to find their child had been strip searched - whether by police or not - at school?
Stuff like this makes the news because it's not normal.

[bitchstewie]

It's brilliant how you chaps know that race definitely had nothing to do with it off the back of a couple of newspaper articles whilst the people who actually had access to all the information needed to review what happened came to an entirely different conclusion and got it wrong.

Peak PistonHeads.

[_dobbo_]

B235r said:

Am I meant to care about this? Nope sorry, female searched by two females really don't see the problem & of course she's now traumatised for life just long enough for her family to get some competition

Caring requires empathy. I'm sure as a child in school you'd have been happy to strip naked in front of some coppers and have them closely examine your cock and balls in spite of the fact that you had done absolutely nothing wrong.

On a broader note I'd imagine if you were the officers who conducted the search, the supervisor who authorised it, or the school who permitted it to happen, you'd care very much at the moment.

Anyone with even the most basic grasp of safeguarding issues knows this case stinks to high heaven.

[Prizam]

_dobbo_ said:

B235r said:

Am I meant to care about this? Nope sorry, female searched by two females really don't see the problem & of course she's now traumatised for life just long enough for her family to get some competition

Caring requires empathy. I'm sure as a child in school you'd have been happy to strip naked in front of some coppers and have them closely examine your cock and balls in spite of the fact that you had done absolutely nothing wrong.

On a broader note I'd imagine if you were the officers who conducted the search, the supervisor who authorised it, or the school who permitted it to happen, you'd care very much at the moment.

Anyone with even the most basic grasp of safeguarding issues knows this case stinks to high heaven.

Seporate out the issues here.

Racist - no.
Wrong - yes

[Zetec-S]

B235r said:

Am I meant to care about this? Nope sorry, female searched by two females really don't see the problem & of course she's now traumatised for life just long enough for her family to get some competition

I take it you wouldn't have a problem if you (or a member of your family) were strip searched then?

[_dobbo_]

Prizam said:

_dobbo_ said:

B235r said:

Am I meant to care about this? Nope sorry, female searched by two females really don't see the problem & of course she's now traumatised for life just long enough for her family to get some competition

Caring requires empathy. I'm sure as a child in school you'd have been happy to strip naked in front of some coppers and have them closely examine your cock and balls in spite of the fact that you had done absolutely nothing wrong.

On a broader note I'd imagine if you were the officers who conducted the search, the supervisor who authorised it, or the school who permitted it to happen, you'd care very much at the moment.

Anyone with even the most basic grasp of safeguarding issues knows this case stinks to high heaven.

Seporate out the issues here.

Racist - no.
Wrong - yes

Since neither I nor the person I replied to mentioned the race element of this case, I fail to see how I need to separate anything.

Anyway people with far more knowledge of this case than us concluded race was a factor. I'll tend to go along with that rather than some rando on PH thanks.

So more accurately:

Racist - yes
Wrong - yes

[donkmeister]

bhstewie said:

It's brilliant how you chaps know that race definitely had nothing to do with it off the back of a couple of newspaper articles whilst the people who actually had access to all the information needed to review what happened came to an entirely different conclusion and got it wrong.

Peak PistonHeads.

That's a bit disingenuous too though... The news report doesn't explain why the panel reached the conclusion that it was racially motivated, the BBC only gave some hand-waving statement about adults thinking black kids are older than they are.

So if the reasoning was given, people could nod along and think "what a pair of dicks!" rather than "so where is the racism?!".

Edited by donkmeister on Wednesday 16th March 12:16

[monthou]

donkmeister said:

bhstewie said:

It's brilliant how you chaps know that race definitely had nothing to do with it off the back of a couple of newspaper articles whilst the people who actually had access to all the information needed to review what happened came to an entirely different conclusion and got it wrong.

Peak PistonHeads.

That's a bit disingenuous too though... The news report doesn't explain why the panel reached the conclusion that it was racially motivated, the BBC only gave some hand-waving statement about adults thinking black kids are older than they are.

The colour of the victim's skin doesn't make it racially motivated, the actions of the perpetrators are what make it racially motivated. There's a difference between "strip searched whilst black" and "strip searched BECAUSE black".

Something injust where a black person is the victim and a white person is the perpetrator isn't necessarily racist regardless of how traumatic it might be to the victim.

It's really not.
Report says racism "was likely to have been an influencing factor".
Papers quote report conclusions but not all the evidence they're based on.
Posters here say definitely not racist.
Based on what?

[bitchstewie]

donkmeister said:

That's a bit disingenuous too though... The news report doesn't explain why the panel reached the conclusion that it was racially motivated, the BBC only gave some hand-waving statement about adults thinking black kids are older than they are.

The colour of the victim's skin doesn't make it racially motivated, the actions of the perpetrators are what make it racially motivated. There's a difference between "strip searched whilst black" and "strip searched BECAUSE black".

Something injust where a black person is the victim and a white person is the perpetrator isn't necessarily racist regardless of how traumatic it might be to the victim.

I don't think it is.

A safeguarding inquiry found racism "was likely to have been an influencing factor" and what happened to her was "unlikely to have been the same" had she not been black.

The report literally says what happened to her was likely "BECAUSE black".

Scotland Yard have apologised and the IOPC are investigating.

Is there anyone reading this thread who thinks they're in possession of enough information to say the safeguarding inquiry got it wrong?

It's perverse.

[donkmeister]

monthou said:

donkmeister said:

bhstewie said:

It's brilliant how you chaps know that race definitely had nothing to do with it off the back of a couple of newspaper articles whilst the people who actually had access to all the information needed to review what happened came to an entirely different conclusion and got it wrong.

Peak PistonHeads.

That's a bit disingenuous too though... The news report doesn't explain why the panel reached the conclusion that it was racially motivated, the BBC only gave some hand-waving statement about adults thinking black kids are older than they are.

The colour of the victim's skin doesn't make it racially motivated, the actions of the perpetrators are what make it racially motivated. There's a difference between "strip searched whilst black" and "strip searched BECAUSE black".

Something injust where a black person is the victim and a white person is the perpetrator isn't necessarily racist regardless of how traumatic it might be to the victim.

It's really not.
Report says racism "was likely to have been an influencing factor".
Papers quote report conclusions but not all the evidence they're based on.
Posters here say definitely not racist.
Based on what?

Those last two paras I removed as they're redundant.

The final para, you've removed:

"So if the reasoning was given, people could nod along and think "what a pair of dicks!" rather than "so where is the racism?!".

Don't you think it's better that we are given the facts? If we're told what the racial motivation is, that takes the wind out of the sails of those who want to say "nope, definitely not racist". Just blindly accepting the panel's findings without the logic behind them helps nothing.

[donkmeister]

bhstewie said:

I don't think it is.

A safeguarding inquiry found racism "was likely to have been an influencing factor" and what happened to her was "unlikely to have been the same" had she not been black.

The report literally says what happened to her was likely "BECAUSE black".

Scotland Yard have apologised and the IOPC are investigating.
[b]
Is there anyone reading this thread who thinks they're in possession of enough information to say the safeguarding inquiry got it wrong?[/b]

It's perverse.

No. Do you have enough information to say they got it right?
Read the final para of my post, it was there before my edit to remove the redundant bits that you are quoting.

I'm not saying it wasn't racist, I'm saying that the news reports don't give us enough information to explain that it was racist.

It's like the Monty python argument sketch in here sometimes...