Police treatment of arrested women

[Gfamily]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60158879
She was arrested while attempting to prevent her partner's car being removed by a tow-truck. When she refused to give her details to the police at the station her clothes were removed "so she couldn't use them for self harm"

I'd be interested to know how often the police remove the clothing of men while under arrest.
Two reports within the last couple of weeks suggests that it's been adopted as an action intended to humiliate 'non-cooperative' women

[Fishnut]

Hertfordshire Police said it "didn't get everything right on this occasion".

This implies they got some things right. But given that Ms Farrell "successfully sued for wrongful arrest, receiving an apology and £45,000 in compensation." I think they're exaggerating their competence.

She was asked to remove her clothing, with a replacement "crop top and hot pants" left in the cell.

I'm sorry but who the f.ck thinks that's appropriate clothing for anyone in a prison cell? Many of those in the article talk about this as being a problem of cultural insensitivity, and while I'm sure that the fact she was a black woman played a huge part in her treatment, the simple fact remains that crop top and hot pants are hugely inappropriate clothing in the circumstances.

They claim that it's to prevent people from using the clothing to harm themselves but there are surely ways to provide adequate clothing while minimising the risk of self-harm. After all, other institutions manage it (or are patients in psychiatric hospitals dressed as if they're heading to the beach?). Their excuse that they couldn't assess her risk for self-harm meant they had to assume she was seems ludicrous. Who does the assessments? If it's someone who has to be called in then does that mean that everyone being held is stripped until they arrive?

Ms Farrell's solicitor,

said he frequently encountered instances of police misusing strip-search powers, because many of his clients entered custody following alleged unlawful arrests and disputed the need to provide personal details as a form of protest.

"In response to this, the police often use the sanction of a strip-search to enforce the person's compliance through a very physical act of degradation and humiliation," he said.

A proper investigation of this would surely have looked at how many other people were being held that day (and in the days prior and following), how many had been assessed and how many of those who had not been had also been stripped. But there's no mention of that having been done, because everyone knows it's an excuse that we're not supposed to question.

It's worth pointing out that, as always, the police had to be forced to admit their wrongdoing,

Hertfordshire Police's professional standards department initially rejected Ms Farrell's complaint. She then enlisted the help of solicitor Iain Gould, who specialises in claims against the police.

[discovolante]

During my brief stint of police station representation it seemed fairly common for the police to take men's belts, but not their trousers, which presumably pose just about the same 'risk' as Ms Farrell's clothes.

[notarobot]

Old forum member and long time lurker here.

This at least used to be relatively common in my area. I had a problematic childhood and youth and extensive contact with the police up until about 20 years ago. With regard to belts and shoelaces there has never been a time these have not been taken from me, even as a young teenager when I spent very short periods in a cell for minor misdeeds. Typically footwear (including laces) is left outside the cell door, belts in the property bag or behind the custody desk. Trousers have maybe been taken 50% of the time, again to be left outside the cell door. Worth pointing out I’ve lived in jeans most of my life and jeans are actually very difficult to tear, and probably not much easier to use as a ligature (being tough, thick and difficult to twist into a ‘rope’).

On four occasions I’ve been forcibly held down and had clothes pulled or cut off. Two of these occasions the reasons given were ostensibly to prevent harm to myself although I’d wager it’s more of a humiliation tactic, to take the fight out of somebody. My behaviour on those occasions was not entirely reasonable so it can be argued I wasn’t thinking straight and it was justified.

The other two occasions were both due to the fact I was "obstructive", and had not provided my name. The explanation given on these occasions was that risk to self could not be accurately gauged and that the police had to go to extraordinary lengths to reduce all risks in order that they could ensure I didn’t harm myself in custody. Again, it felt on these occasions like a humiliation tactic but it is by definition humiliating and the police have at least plausible deniability.

If clothes are damaged by scissors in this process paper suits are supplied. These are essentially quite transparent and revealing.

There is anti-ligature clothing available (that term in Google will provide a rough idea). I’ve came across three variations, two in hospital and one in a young offenders institution in the mid 90s. The first variation is very short shorts and what is in essence a short length T-shirt. The second literally looked like a duvet with arm holes, the third more like pyjamas in style. On all three the fabric is incredibly stiff, thick and quilted. The thickness and stiffness again, like I mentioned with jeans, makes it very hard to tear and very, very hard to roll into a rope shape (you’d struggle to roll it narrow enough to fit around a neck so jeans that go up to 11).

If you look at prison suicides by hanging, torn strips of bed sheets are commonly used. Very easy to get strips fine enough to fit around a human neck basically.

With regard to the discussed instance I’m guessing if longer items made of thinner materials there is some inherent risk involved with regard to use as ligatures. I don’t know how this compares to mens trousers. Denim trousers I’d guess would be fractionally harder to use as a ligature, for similar reasons that make anti-ligature clothing harder to use (thickness etc.)

I’m not saying I believe what happened here is justified as I don’t, and am not privy to all of the details. I do believe the removal of clothes is used as a humiliating tactic to coerce though. I also believe police can and will overstep the line frequently, especially if you are obstructive or resist. Also what constitutes obstruction (and any response) can wildly vary on an officer vs. officer or even day to day basis.

I don’t know if this tactic is becoming more common but it wouldn’t surprise me. I also don’t know if there’s a male:female disparity but, again, this would not surprise me due to the other issue women still regularly face.

I’m not shilling for the police, and n=1/anecdotal disclaimer

[El Pollo Diablo]

Thanks, notarobot, for the information - just to check, are you a man or a woman? (Don't answer if you don't want to, it was mentioned above as a matter that might affect the police's reaction, hence the question).

[notarobot]

I am male, so I am not qualified to speak for females here.

On a very local level at least, and only up until slightly over 20 years ago females having their clothes removed by police was not something I’d encountered but with a caveat: I didn’t really know that many females who got arrested more than a couple of times. The ones that were faced an entirely different set of issues (which I will not go into) which were often horrific. I’d not be shocked if this has increased at all to be clear.

I just wanted to provide some general context with regard to being forcibly derobed by the police, the possible reasons for this happening, and the kind of clothing that should probably be available when this is deemed necessary.

If it is deemed necessary to remove the clothing of prisoners there certainly is adequately modest ligature proof clothing available (the trousers and long sleeved pyjama type or even the long straight gowns). This wasn’t an option 20 years ago locally that I’m aware of in a police setting but it did exist back then as I encountered it in a different custody setting.

[discovolante]

Thanks from me too. I guess this is similar to a lot of situations - neither party has acted 'perfectly' so it's easier for the police to point to some apparently plausible reason as to why they did what they did. And maybe sometimes they were justified and sometimes they weren't, but it takes a lot of persistence to prove it if they weren't.

[Fishnut]

A belated thanks from me too notarobot. It's really useful to get personal insights.

[Fishnut]

From ITV News, Met used force thousands of times on self-described pregnant or possibly pregnant women,

Between January 2018 and June 2021, there were 2,556 occasions when incapacitant spray or force was recorded on risk assessments as being used by Met officers on [pregnant or possibly pregnant] women and girls.

In total, the Met made 4,117 arrests of self-described pregnant or possibly pregnant women over this period, meaning more than half of these interactions involved some use of force.

On three occasions this use of force included the use of a Taser.

The article doesn't mention any cases where the pregnant person or foetus was harmed as a result but that may be a lack of data than a lack of cases.