The behaviour of UK police officers.

Police Scotland policy on the strip search of children, from the SOP Care and Welfare of Persons in Police Custody;

"In all cases the strip search of a child will only take place with the authority of Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Officer of the rank Inspector or above. Appropriate recording of information will be made on the NCS.

For the purposes of this section, a child is a person who is under 18 years of age (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, Section 51(3)). All search processes must be lawful, necessary and proportionate to perceived risk of harm. The purpose of a search is to ensure that a child is not in possession of any item or substance that could cause harm to themselves or someone else.

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 provides a duty to consider a child’s wellbeing in respect of arrest, holding in police custody, interviewing and charging with an offence. Staff must treat the need to safeguard the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration. This must be balanced alongside the need to act as promptly as necessary to ensure the safety of the child and police staff whilst in custody and to fully investigate crimes.

Officers should also be aware that a trauma informed approach is required when considering whether a child requires to be strip searched. In that regard custody decision makers will be supported through training. Further information regarding what aspects to consider in taking a Trauma Informed Approach can be found within the Custody Officers Guide.

All custody staff and Supervisors must make themselves aware of the contents of the guide before making an application to the Force Custody Inspector to authorise a strip search of a child.

Before a child is searched staff must provide an explanation of the reasons for the search, how it will happen so that they can understand about their rights and the reasons for steps being taken. This must be in plain, everyday language. All explanation must be given in a manner and at a pace that can be understood by the child so that the child has opportunity to consent and co-operate without coercion. The child must be told about what choices they can make when a search is authorised, and these choices should be re-iterated to reassure the child and ensure a rights-based approach. The child’s views should be heard and considered in determining when and how a search will be conducted.

Unless there is risk of serious harm to the child or another, an appropriate person (such as a member of family / carer) should be present when a strip search is conducted. This search can take place in the absence of an appropriate person if the child has specifically requested this, and the appropriate person agrees. The decision must be recorded on the NCS with the details of the adult included. Social Work must be contacted in situations where the parent / guardian refuses to attend or engage to consider a child’s support needs in the context of what is known about the child.

If a child is ‘looked after’ (that is they are subject to a Child Supervision Order), the relevant Social Work Authority or team, carer or care establishment (if known) must be contacted so that an appropriate person can be identified and given opportunity to attend for the purposes of supporting a child before, during and / or after search processes. There is no legislative requirement for those notified to attend. If those so notified decline to attend, details must be recorded on both NCS and interim Vulnerable Persons Database (iVPD) with the search still proceeding.

Where an urgent strip search is essential to prevent immediate risk of harm and is conducted prior to the arrival of an appropriate person, Staff must record the justification, along with what action has been taken to secure the immediate attendance of an appropriate person.

In all cases the strip search of a child will only take place with the authority of CJSD officer of the rank Inspector or above. Appropriate recording of information will be made on the NCS.

All strip searches must be recorded on the iVPD by the enquiry officer. These details may be shared with partners, so it is crucial full details of the strip search are included within the concern report. This should include the reason for the search, views of the child, findings of the search, any specific speech, language, or communication needs. All strip searches of children must be recorded on iVPD.

Where an urgent strip search is conducted of a young person prior to the arrival of a suitable adult, officers must record the justification along with what action has been taken to secure the immediate attendance of the suitable adult."

I don't know the Met policy, as it was then, but the cops in the school incident failed to follow the above SOP by not getting permission for the search and failing to have a suitable adult present. I don't know how inclined a supervisor would be, to give permission. For example, if the school was experiencing high levels of drug issues, with pupils dealing or being at school under the influence, then yes, give permission. If there were no drugs issues, then no.
 
Plus, this;


"A child was strip searched more than once a day by police in England and Wales between January 2018 and June 2023, with the youngest child being just eight, data from the Children’s Commissioner has revealed.
More than 3,000 strip searches were conducted on children over a five-and-a-half-year period, equivalent to one search every 14 hours on average. Of those, 457 strip searches were carried out between July 2022 and June 2023."

There is a process and need to strip search children, at times and it is commonly done. So, to all those who say that they know, you don't. Or else, how come hundreds, possibly thousands of police officers stripped searched children 2018-23, without any of them being sacked? What did they do right, that the cops who sacked did wrong? Does anyone seriously think that of the 3,000 strip searches, none were of school aged girls, from an ethnic background, suspected by a credible source, to be in possession of controlled drugs?
I assume that the"know not to strip search children" meant"without an appropriate adult and not without good cause" I wold argue that suspected possession of class B drugs for personal use wouldn't be good enough reason.
 
Farting cop sacked.


"A detective has been sacked for farting in her station and repeatedly swearing while on duty.
Claire Fitzpatrick, 44, said her actions and words were just a part of the ‘culture of banter’ at the station, but there were several complaints.
She admitted mimicking Borat or using a silly voice after she broke wind and saying ‘rather out than in’."


"A MET cop has been sacked after farting in a female officer’s face and laughing when she refused to "pull his finger". PC Wayne Sansom is one of two officers who have been axed following gross misconduct."

The press concentrated on the farting, but both were repeatedly idiots towards colleagues and the public and the police are best rid of them.
 
That photo looks very strange.

It really does.

Apparently that extra pocket is called a 'ticket pocket' and is a thing in UK suits now.

But the whole image looks wrong, as it it has been composed by AI.

I wonder if it is an example of 'photo journalism' where the editor/writer, looks through a large set of photographs, and chooses the image that makes the subjects look the worst.

I can remember that being covered during a media class somewhere, but not sure where.

The conclusion was something like this:

"Every photo, every piece of film you see in the media, has been chosen by someone. To de construct this, you need to think: "Why has someone chosen this image, what is their underlying motive?"

For example, a photographer went to great lengths to achieve this photo of an Australian Prime Minister:


Why was it published? To undermine that Prime Minister Labor Politician, who ended up becoming Prime Minister.

'Photo journalism' is a great way to manipulate the audience.
 
Last edited:
A ticket pocket isn't a new thing but it was never on a suit for any kind of formal occasion or work.They were usually found on 'Sports Jackets'.
I have a very nice lightweight Yorkshire Wool Worsted jacket in a dark green that has a ticket pocket.
They were for use when you went for a day at the races or other country persuit.
You finished on cheap suits trying to look posh these days along with contrast stitching on the button holes and pinprick lines around collar edges.
Plus that waistcoat is too small for him and it's of a style more suitable for a dinner jacket (tuxedo in the USA)rather than a business suit. They are cut very low like a dinner jacket and scooped to show off a fancy shirt front.

Nasty.
 
Last edited:
That photo looks very strange.
I think some HDR processing has been applied in-camera. Otherwise it's probably unedited.

I don't like his shiny suit but each to their own. The waistcoat is jarringly weirdly cut for a business suit as Andy pointed out.
 
A ticket pocket isn't a new thing but it was never on a suit for any kind of formal occasion or work.They were usually found on 'Sports Jackets'.
I have a very nice lightweight Yorkshire Wool Worsted jacket in a dark green that has a ticket pocket.

They were for use when you went for a day at the races or other country persuit.
You finished on cheap suits trying to look posh these days along with contrast stitching on the button holes and pinprick lines around collar edges.
Plus that waistcoat is too small for him and it's of a style more suitable for a dinner jacket (tuxedo in the USA)rather than a business suit. They are cut very low like a dinner jacket and scooped to show off a fancy shirt front.

Nasty.
My (cheap, tweedy suit) jacket has one, but inside, below the usual inside pocket.
 
That photo looks very strange.
What's strange about the photo is that Amaaz' - or is it Amaad's - children's granny is missing. Looking forward to seeing the 'respectable' veneer crumbling when the Judge hands down the swaggering macho thugs two years in the clink.
 
Last edited:
So PC Marsden has been cross-examined today by KC, Khan, with the focus on whether the attempt to arrest Amaaz was 'proportionate', plus introducing the idea Amaad was trying to defend his brother, thinking a policeman was pointing a gun at him

‘UNJUSTIFIED, DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT NECESSARY’Jurors return as cross-examination of PC Marsden resumes. Mr Khan KC says it was a “wrong decision” to try and detain Mr Amaaz at the pay station
 
A police officer has been dismissed after he was found to have touched and bitten a woman's breast in a pub.

A Cleveland Police misconduct hearing found PC Ian Coverdale's actions breached professional standards and he was sacked without notice.

During the four-day hearing at Scotswood House in Thornaby, Mr Coverdale admitted he had put his head between the victim's breasts but claimed any bite was "accidental".

The misconduct panel found his account to be "untruthful" and his actions in December 2023 were found to have amounted to gross misconduct.

A misconduct proceedings determination report stated that Mr Coverdale's account of the events was "unpersuasive, lacked cogency and in some respects was contradicted by CCTV footage from the public house".

"His account in a number of respects was not capable of belief," it read.

 
Yet another police officer commits suicide, during a misconduct investigation. Those who investigate need to be investigated themselves, to ensure they are not putting undue pressure on those they are investigating;


"The death of a police officer who was under investigation for gross misconduct has sparked a review of how a force deals with the cases."
 
Yet another police officer commits suicide, during a misconduct investigation. Those who investigate need to be investigated themselves, to ensure they are not putting undue pressure on those they are investigating;


"The death of a police officer who was under investigation for gross misconduct has sparked a review of how a force deals with the cases."
They were suspended from work. At the most she could have been required to provide answers (or "no comment") to questions. What would constituent undue pressure?
 
They were suspended from work. At the most she could have been required to provide answers (or "no comment") to questions. What would constituent undue pressure?

PSD are notorious for presuming guilt of the cops they investigate. Every cop has a story about dreadfully unfair and poor quality investigations by those tasked with investigations. The worst investigators, in the police, are put into PSD. Then there is the length of time the investigations take, it can be years for even the simplest of accusations. There is also a lot of inconsistency, whereby two cops, accused of the same thing and one will be excused and the other have the book thrown at them.

If you read any independent review, such as the Angiolini or Casey reports, or HMIC inspections into PSD or other units such as the Counter Corruption Unit in Scotland, you will see how flawed and badly run the misconduct system is. It lets down the public as well as the police.
 
Being found out?

There will be some cops, who are guilty of the accusation against them, who cannot deal with what will happen, and so chose to end their lives. It is the same with the public, but I suspect the rate of suicide is higher amongst the police. Police management know that, which is why they ignore the problem;


"The meeting heard that five Police Scotland officers have sadly committed suicide in the past three years. David said there was a lack of suicide prevention training at all ranks, and that he had heard from managers who had had zero training in the identification of issues and concerns about their staff."
 

Back
Top Bottom