Discussion Time!, Not that this arrest was wrong, but was it dignifying to the lady. Options

[Darkatmosphere]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47589034.

As someone who spends his life around with MH sufferers, I can see why there was a reaction to the situation by the lady, It may have seemed OTT and Obstructive to most people, a ploy if you will, to avoid the police's intentions to arrest her, but let me explain, Some who have High degree's of anxiety and other MH problems (Autistic Spectrum Disorder-Bipolar-schizoaffective disorder) can have severe adverse reactions to unplanned and unexpected disruptions to daily life and can have severe adverse reactions to authoritative people who represent Authority and discipline, and towards in rational thought and behaviour, this forms in ways such as shouting, screaming and crying with hysteria, lashing out and physically violent, then some with MH issues also have issues in communicating with strangers combined can trigger a severe emotional and behavioural outbursts that you see in the video clip, please bare this in mind.

The Constables in attendance did good of keeping composure, their voice tone and movement to a smooth and fluent as possible from what we see in the clip when around the lady they intended to arrest her which leads me to believe they have had some degree of MH manual handling training but dropped the ball slightly on something else they let their emotion to be displayed with their urgency to get out of there quick.

Unfortunately, Like many communities around the world there are certain rules that should be respected and adhered to, Most Irish Traveller communities also have a strict set of community imposed beliefs and rules to adhere to as well their main practiced religion, These are known to the police very well, like other religions and beliefs systems around the world a woman should not be touched by another male other than that of the husband, to the traveller community it is disrespectful, it could also cause or incite rage or violence...or so I am told.

The offence happened a while ago, and there some time between it happening and an arrest, I am sure the police constables had a Pre Arrest briefing on this lady, had knowledge of her MH issues as I am led to think the police may have had dealings in the past with her and or the family, I'm aware there are female PC shortages but considering the belief systems within the travelling community why was one not on hand?

I the clip we hear that the Husband say "she's upstairs getting dressed", but that is such a generic term, it would be wrong then to assume seeing her come down in a bath robe that she would be fully dressed underneath, so the Constable in attendance would have knowledge that she at the very minimum would have only underwear on perhaps no bra.
There were offers by her Husband to allow him to get her some clothes that went dismissed, and seeing her in a state about mainly being undressed in front of an all 4 male cast in front of her knowing she was going to be touched by them in front of her husband freaked her out immensely.
Why did they afford he some dignity in calling control and asking for Female WPC or PCSO to attend to ensure that she did nothing whilst getting dressed?

Her robe once arrested with arm behind her back, became undone and by the time to they got to the station she was almost de-robed and when put in a cell she ended up de-robed, she was offered up a blanket and wrapped up by a male which I am led to believe to be touched by a male other than a husband is an insult? and thus her reaction of get off me.
Why did the Constable riding back in a Van now call for a WPC and boiler suit to be on hand and when they pulled up one went in and got them and then WPC went van with her and uncuffed and she gets dressed?
This may have prevented her being naked in the cell.

Whilst I don't see anything wrong with the arrest and behaviour of the Constables in attendance, I think they could have afforded her a female PC and allowed her to get dressed, I think there was no need to have the potential to have her feel embarrassed by not allowing her to get dressed or collect some clothes or arrange for a boiler suit and WPC at time of book in so she could get dressed in the back of the van at the station, there was a lack timely patience due to Constables wanting to get her out of the house on down to the station ASAP, I think her behavior heightened that need to be more urgent to remove her from the house, where as I feel they could have had a better result had they slowed down the urgency to leave and get out, they could have controlled it better by saying there isn't a problem tighten your robe now and wait with us, we'll call a WPC to come and go with you to get dressed we just need to wait here, and proceeded to control the situation in the already calm manor they were already talking to her further more, de escalating her heightened anxiety.

where does the line of affording decency and dignity get drawn?

I see why the IPCC came back with nothing more than a they did nothing wrong they have a reputation to maintain.

Is there a basis in a liability claim there? (no jokes about any one can claim but whether they will win is another matter waffle, you know what I mean).

This post has been edited by Darkatmosphere: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 10:34

[Advertisement]

[oldstoat]

ah the old race card, used to trigger the leftards into an apoplexy of rage. Then lets lose sight of the reason for arrest, and start discussing how bad the police are. Thus loosing sight of the original issue. Cloud with race, obscure with issues, add a dose of culture, and the police must be wrong. FFS

[DancingDad]

But Ms Moloney said: "If two people from Cyncoed (an affluent Cardiff suburb) had an argument, would they have arrested a woman from Cyncoed in that manner?

Always love that sort of comparison.
If the woman from Cyncoed had started slagging off the police and caused them to believe that she would become violent, the answer can only be yes.
May have tasered her as well.

It's the age old attitude test isn't it, start resisting and what do they expect the police to do?
Otherwise, don't care if they are travellers or what, come quietly and it is a lot more likely that someone will be arrested with dignity... may have been allowed to get some clothes on.

[PASTMYBEST]

The police were told she is upstairs getting dressed. So why did she come down almost undressed? so she could cause a scene and the police are the bad guy's

[cp8759]

While the situation is unfortunate, it's not obvious that the police did anything unlawful. If there had been female officers and a mental health nurse available, obviously that would be ideal, but if not, we cannot know whether the decision to proceed with the arrest anyway was justified or not.

If she was arrested for saying "no ****" to someone, the response was likely disproportionate.

If she was arrested because she had (right or wrongly) been accused of section 4 public order, the police response may well be justified.

But without the background (which the IOPC will have considered but the BBC either doesn't have or hasn't published), we cannot say.

[ViroBono]

There was no need for an AMPH or mental health nurse to be present as the police weren’t executing a s.135 MHA warrant. The officers appeared to me to be perfectly professional - it was the family members who were winding the woman up.

There’s no race issue, but I note that whilst the professionally outraged BBC and assorted lefties choke on their lentils on this sort of thing, they seem to expect respect to be shown only by one side.

[captain swoop]

Seems to me in this thread it isn't the 'outraged BBC' or 'assorted lefties' who are choking on lentils over this sort of thing.

[notmeatloaf]

Working in a hospital, some people use nudity, cynically or otherwise, as a way of getting at people. People also make allegations of sexual assault for the same reason.

After all, it is actually much more awkward to deal with someone pegging it around naked versus someone being verbally aggressive or physically aggressive.

The way we usually tell is that people intending to manipulate a person or situation will do it repeatedly. Without getting into a "cry wolf" situation, if someone has alleged 100 nurses have sexually assaulted them, then you're going to find it difficult to be taken seriously for the 101st.

I'm sure an investigator, with the person's past medical history, will be able to judge better than from one video clip.

[Neil B]

If you're going to be making comments of this sort, you should maybe read up on your terminology >

the lady,

Is likely to get you hung up by the sphericals by many in my locale.

[Darkatmosphere]

If you're going to be making comments of this sort, you should maybe read up on your terminology >

the lady,

Is likely to get you hung up by the sphericals by many in my locale.

Good job I don’t live in your locale then, and who cares! Lady when used as a noun is to keep discussion polite, basic English or is this forum all about millennial slang and alternate dimension meanings for different words that can only cause offence to Brutus illiteratus down the road? Or shall I post wholly in Welsh? All rhetorical questions BTW

[oldstoat]

While the situation is unfortunate, it's not obvious that the police did anything unlawful. If there had been female officers and a mental health nurse available, obviously that would be ideal, but if not, we cannot know whether the decision to proceed with the arrest anyway was justified or not.

If she was arrested for saying "no ****" to someone, the response was likely disproportionate.

If she was arrested because she had (right or wrongly) been accused of section 4 public order, the police response may well be justified.

But without the background (which the IOPC will have considered but the BBC either doesn't have or hasn't published), we cannot say.

but surely now we live in an equal world, the gender of the officer should no longer be relevant. Unless of course it assists the person being arrested. In this day and age, the police will a lways be in the wrong.

FFS. police keep the Monarchs peace. No fear. No favour. No problem

This post has been edited by oldstoat: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 16:13

[DancingDad]

...….but surely now we live in an equal world, the gender of the officer should no longer be relevant...……...

On the TV the other day there was a discussion on gender identification.
Seems there are now 22 different genders to consider when making any remarks pertaining to someone's gender.
Far cry from my day when we only had three, he, she or it.

[Darkatmosphere]

Where does the line of affording decency and dignity get drawn?

I see why the IPCC came back with nothing more than a they did nothing wrong they have a reputation to maintain.

Is there a basis in a liability claim there? (no jokes about any one can claim but whether they will win is another matter waffle, you know what I mean).

[DancingDad]

Where does the line of affording decency and dignity get drawn?

I see why the IPCC came back with nothing more than a they did nothing wrong they have a reputation to maintain.

Is there a basis in a liability claim there? (no jokes about any one can claim but whether they will win is another matter waffle, you know what I mean).

Based on what?
The clip on the BBC is edited but unless bodycam footage shows cops being different to how they seem on the footage we see, WTF is she moaning about?
The clip opens with hubby saying "she's upstairs getting dressed" and a relaxed sounding cop saying okay....it's not as though they burst in and gave her no chance to dress.
She then appears on the stairs in a dressing gown.... her decision, didn't seem to be anything that the cops insisted on. They seemed happy for her to get dressed.
Then it all goes Pete Tong..... seems to be when a cop asked her for her phone and she kicked off.... again, what did the cops do wrong?
Or what should they have done according to the PC brigade.... backed off and apologised ???

It's all well and good going on about respect and dignity but it cuts both ways, if anyone wants the cops to treat them with respect, they need to give the same to the cops.
If the woman had acted with a bit of decency and dignity then I for one believe that is what she would have had from the cops.
And to be honest, with the caveat on what the body cam footage shows in full, I cannot see any court seeing it any other way.

[Darkatmosphere]

Where does the line of affording decency and dignity get drawn?

I see why the IPCC came back with nothing more than a they did nothing wrong they have a reputation to maintain.

Is there a basis in a liability claim there? (no jokes about any one can claim but whether they will win is another matter waffle, you know what I mean).

Based on what?
The clip on the BBC is edited but unless bodycam footage shows cops being different to how they seem on the footage we see, WTF is she moaning about?
The clip opens with hubby saying "she's upstairs getting dressed" and a relaxed sounding cop saying okay....it's not as though they burst in and gave her no chance to dress.
She then appears on the stairs in a dressing gown.... her decision, didn't seem to be anything that the cops insisted on. They seemed happy for her to get dressed.
Then it all goes Pete Tong..... seems to be when a cop asked her for her phone and she kicked off.... again, what did the cops do wrong?
Or what should they have done according to the PC brigade.... backed off and apologised ???

It's all well and good going on about respect and dignity but it cuts both ways, if anyone wants the cops to treat them with respect, they need to give the same to the cops.
If the woman had acted with a bit of decency and dignity then I for one believe that is what she would have had from the cops.
And to be honest, with the caveat on what the body cam footage shows in full, I cannot see any court seeing it any other way.

Based on. Article 3 Human rights. They must not Degrade her (intentionally or unintentionally), they cannot excuse themselves for lack of resources to, or to have done to degrade her so no amount of excuses will waiver this. This excludes her choice of clothing once it was seen what she was wearing the constables should have immediately asked for a WPC and requested that WPC go with so she can dress appropriately (adhering to article 3), you can hear multiple times people around her saying I'll go get her clothes yet not one officer afforded her that or explored that option article 3 therefore is dismissed.
They knew before hand she suffered with Sever Mental health issues, They knew gender.
They also knew she has previously been compliant with a letter request to voluntary interviews, they chose not to explore this option not that this is preferred option but in the context of the allegation of Public order some weeks prior could have been.


The police were calm and it seemed though they handled it well, in that it didn't turn into something else, but whilst handling it well, are not completely faultless.

[Fredd]

Where does the line of affording decency and dignity get drawn?

I see why the IPCC came back with nothing more than a they did nothing wrong they have a reputation to maintain.

Is there a basis in a liability claim there? (no jokes about any one can claim but whether they will win is another matter waffle, you know what I mean).

Didn't you like the answers you got when you asked the exact same questions in your opening post?

[Darkatmosphere]

Where does the line of affording decency and dignity get drawn?

I see why the IPCC came back with nothing more than a they did nothing wrong they have a reputation to maintain.

Is there a basis in a liability claim there? (no jokes about any one can claim but whether they will win is another matter waffle, you know what I mean).

Didn't you like the answers you got when you asked the exact same questions in your opening post?

No disrespect fredd but I was replying to the one(s) that did answer. I was asked "Based on what". What your inferring has a two way street, Pro police supporters adamant no wrong doing, don't like the answers when faced with the law, and you accusing me of not liking the answers so I repeat them. NOT THE CASE BTW I was bring the thread back on topic! I state now I come from a Armed Forces and Police family so hating on police is not my thing, and tought to question everything is my downfall maybe,
Unfortunately your premature in this inferred question, as, well, where are they, these answers?

1.Is there a basis in a liability claim there? Not answered

2.Where does the line of affording decency and dignity get drawn? discussed by 1 person.

There's opinion on race and religion and gender, opinion of who is right and wrong looking at the clip, only dancingdad has opened the discussion by answering question 2 directly and I replied for discussion. Quite frankly there is nothing in this thread not to like.

This post has been edited by Darkatmosphere: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 18:13

[DancingDad]

.........Based on. Article 3 Human rights. They must not Degrade her (intentionally or unintentionally), they cannot excuse themselves for lack of resources to, or to have done to degrade her so no amount of excuses will waiver this. This excludes her choice of clothing once it was seen what she was wearing the constables should have immediately asked for a WPC and requested that WPC go with so she can dress appropriately (adhering to article 3), you can hear multiple times people around her saying I'll go get her clothes yet not one officer afforded her that or explored that option article 3 therefore is dismissed.
They knew before hand she suffered with Sever Mental health issues, They knew gender.
They also knew she has previously been compliant with a letter request to voluntary interviews, they chose not to explore this option not that this is preferred option but in the context of the allegation of Public order some weeks prior could have been.


The police were calm and it seemed though they handled it well, in that it didn't turn into something else, but whilst handling it well, are not completely faultless.

Am I reading the same Article 3 as you?
"ARTICLE 3 Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Cos that doesn't quite fit with arresting someone when they kick off and deciding not to risk letting that person get dressed.
After, I hasten to add, giving her the chance to get decent, an opportunity she ignored.
Had they turned up, stripped her and dragged her down the street nekked I might move towards your thoughts but not as the video clip shows.

As for the other bits....
Chose not to send a letter asking her to attend a voluntary interview?
Hardly damming and not AFAIK established police procedure.... "Have you collared that scroat yet George?" "No guv but we sent him a letter asking him to pop in when he could"
And I am not aware of anything that says police cannot knock on someone's door and ask them to come down to the station for an interview.

Should have sent a WPC. Why, male cops arrest women everyday of the week. As long as they behave and do not indulge in sexual shenanigans, no foul.
BTW, WPCs no longer exist, they are all PCs, totally asexual. Honest
And certainly none on the Race Card as the thrust of the article seems to be trying to make.

Severe Mental Health issues. Hardly seems to accord with the other vision you ask us to consider, that she would have peacefully walked into a police station had she just been asked.
It once again comes down to what they would or perhaps should have expected.
HAd it been that her mental health would prevent a quiet arrest, I dare say they would have turned up with a pre-prepared section order and all the relevant personnel.
That they didn't and seemed totally relaxed hardly paints a picture of cops expecting trouble.
Perhaps they should have been and thus are open to some sort of negligence claim on their handling of the situation.
But I doubt that would stand in a court either.

See me as a cop lover if you will but please do not expect me to damn them on what that video clip shows.

[Darkatmosphere]

.........Based on. Article 3 Human rights. They must not Degrade her (intentionally or unintentionally), they cannot excuse themselves for lack of resources to, or to have done to degrade her so no amount of excuses will waiver this. This excludes her choice of clothing once it was seen what she was wearing the constables should have immediately asked for a WPC and requested that WPC go with so she can dress appropriately (adhering to article 3), you can hear multiple times people around her saying I'll go get her clothes yet not one officer afforded her that or explored that option article 3 therefore is dismissed.
They knew before hand she suffered with Sever Mental health issues, They knew gender.
They also knew she has previously been compliant with a letter request to voluntary interviews, they chose not to explore this option not that this is preferred option but in the context of the allegation of Public order some weeks prior could have been.


The police were calm and it seemed though they handled it well, in that it didn't turn into something else, but whilst handling it well, are not completely faultless.

Am I reading the same Article 3 as you?
"ARTICLE 3 Prohibition of torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Cos that doesn't quite fit with arresting someone when they kick off and deciding not to risk letting that person get dressed.
After, I hasten to add, giving her the chance to get decent, an opportunity she ignored.
Had they turned up, stripped her and dragged her down the street nekked I might move towards your thoughts but not as the video clip shows.

As for the other bits....
Chose not to send a letter asking her to attend a voluntary interview?
Hardly damming and not AFAIK established police procedure.... "Have you collared that scroat yet George?" "No guv but we sent him a letter asking him to pop in when he could"
And I am not aware of anything that says police cannot knock on someone's door and ask them to come down to the station for an interview.

Should have sent a WPC. Why, male cops arrest women everyday of the week. As long as they behave and do not indulge in sexual shenanigans, no foul.
BTW, WPCs no longer exist, they are all PCs, totally asexual. Honest
And certainly none on the Race Card as the thrust of the article seems to be trying to make.

Severe Mental Health issues. Hardly seems to accord with the other vision you ask us to consider, that she would have peacefully walked into a police station had she just been asked.
It once again comes down to what they would or perhaps should have expected.
HAd it been that her mental health would prevent a quiet arrest, I dare say they would have turned up with a pre-prepared section order and all the relevant personnel.
That they didn't and seemed totally relaxed hardly paints a picture of cops expecting trouble.
Perhaps they should have been and thus are open to some sort of negligence claim on their handling of the situation.
But I doubt that would stand in a court either.

See me as a cop lover if you will but please do not expect me to damn them on what that video clip shows.

WPC -a woman Police Constatble- was totally abbreviated for ease BTW, honest .
"Should have sent a WPC. Why, male cops arrest women everyday of the week. As long as they behave and do not indulge in sexual shenanigans, no foul". Yes male officers arrest female citizens on a daily basis they are mainly all clothed appropriately what Complete twoddle if you ask me you post nothing to do with law and human right to dignity but of personal opinion, are seriously suggesting to me, they could parade her in the street "nakked" so long as they don't sexually touch or rape her and this is not breaching any right to dignity why is there WPC's called when a male want a female MoP searched then if there's no harm there's no foul right or is it to preserve dignity?
That's a pretty shocking response to be fair.

Article 3 has a caveat: Your right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman[u][b] or degrading way is absolute[/b][/u] (this is why female constables are necessary at Male to female MoP searches, the police has a duty to respect her/his/transgender assignment dignity. This means it must never be limited or restricted in any way (that's important, as this is what you have suggested limiting it to not doing any that it has treated someshenanigans and restricted to only dragging her down the street). For example, a public authority can never use lack of resources as a defence against an accusation one in an inhuman or degrading way.
You have a human right to dignity-the innate value of all human beings. Whether she was being loud or not is irrelevant, in the situation her dignity must remain intact.

Her mental diagnosis is important, as to me it explains her odd reaction and OTT behaviour psychotic mood disorder, psychosis, anxiety disorder make it hard for someone to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally (hence the reaction and lack of reasoning), communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately (hence her reaction to her phone). Had she been afforded a "Volly" at the station, she has the option to control the method and situation in how she undertakes it and with support, it was successful the last time police gave her a "Volly", but I digress, police knew this going in and chose to attend the home(weeks post incident) and this is fine with me, and handled it well in my mind in the approach to her MH. as with regards to the "race card" Article 9 explains it well why: Public authorities cannot interfere with your right to hold or change your beliefs, but there are some situations in which public authorities can interfere with your right to manifest or show your thoughts, belief and religion. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to protect:
•public safety
•public order
•health or morals, and
•the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

I also agree with Article 9 there is no race religion or other that was breached in this instance.

She ignored requests to get dressed, I missed those I must re watch so apologies if there were, but I also heard her husband repeatedly ask let me get her clothes that went unanswered so both parties ignored each other, he husband said in the beginning she is getting dressed but that is subjective and open to interpretation, could have meant she is "nakked" throwing on a rob, or getting fully clothed she obviously chose robe only, it was obvious she was not "clothed" but "covered" when she came to the stairs.

I would hedge a bet a claim will be settled out of court.

[DancingDad]

........She ignored requests to get dressed, I missed those I must re watch so apologies if there were, but I also heard her husband repeatedly ask let me get her clothes that went unanswered so both parties ignored each other, he husband said in the beginning she is getting dressed but that is subjective and open to interpretation, could have meant she is "nakked" throwing on a rob, or getting fully clothed she obviously chose robe only, it was obvious she was not "clothed" but "covered" when she came to the stairs.

I would hedge a bet a claim will be settled out of court.

Didn't say she ignored requests, I said she ignored the opportunity to get dressed.
Very first part of the video..... hubby (sounding quite relaxed) "she's upstairs getting dressed" Copper (equally relaxed) "alright"
Next shot is of her coming down stairs already kicking off..... not having got dressed.
Time codes on the video footage show less then a minute between a relaxed cop who seems willing to wait and her appearing in her dressing gown.

To me that is the key point even if arresting someone not properly dressed comes into article 3 (which I disagree on)
The cops gave her the chance, were quite prepared to wait, they were affording her dignity at that time.
The resultant action cannot be blamed on them, she kicked off. She ignored the chance to get dressed.
And it seems obvious that neither hubby or cop were prepared or expected her to kick off.
I have a daughter with MH issues, I know when she is likely to kick off and am not relaxed about any situation where that is likely.
If nothing else, I would expect hubby to have seemed more on edge if not actually warning cops if her mental health was such that her response could have been reasonably expected.

Similar with a female officer being present.... it seems obvious that they did not expect to have to deal with or search a half naked woman, why insist on a lady cop?
Fully accept would have been nice but can't damn them about it.

Would not take the bet on an out of court settlement.
Not because police did anything wrong but simply because it may be cheaper then fighting it.