How Is She A Victim?

[bednobs]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60141559
Granted, being strip searched is not nice, and the men were unprofessional, but she could have avoided the whole situation by
1) going away when they asked her to
2)not passively resisting and co-operating
3) giving them her name when requested
\what goes through people's heads?

[Peter Pedant]

// what goes through people's heads?//

I dont have to do this - I havent done anything wrong

which goes froo my head quite a lot actually

[Peter Pedant]

why what goes froo your head BN - lets make this country as free as Kazakhstan or mainland China?

[davebro]

She got uppity & the cops responded (perhaps a little too) robustly. They have a lot to deal with - it's not surprising if they get a little peed off at times.

[TheChair]

You mean she could have avoided it by giving up her legal rights. What is the point in us citizens having legal rights if the only choice we have is between giving them up and being abused and humiliated? This is the UK, not North Korea, China, or Egypt.

[Stickybottle]

I guess some people do not always like to see the police going about their work :

[Zacs-Master]

'The boy was found to have a knife, which Dr Duff had not been aware of when she intervened'

Oh dear. silly woman.

[douglas9401]

Robustly, okay, got the measure of you with that one.

We'll just leave uppity to reinforce the impression.

[New Judge]

She was obstructing the police in the course of their duties and was lucky not to have been prosecuted. Apparently she was trying to give a "Know your rights" card to a boy who had been subject to stop-and-search. The boy turned out to be in possession of a knife.

Suspects' rights are explained to them throughout the processes undertaken by the police. There's no need for cards to be given out. Tragic that she's suffering post traumatic stress, but that's life.

//You mean she could have avoided it by giving up her legal rights.//

What rights would she have relinquished if she'd done what bednobs suggests?

1) She doesn't have the right to interfere with a police operation taking place on the street (to do so is a criminal offence)

2) She doesn't have the right to resist arrest (to do so is a criminal offence)

3) Whilst it's not mandatory, it is advisable to give your details to the police when asked, especially after you have been arrested. They will only keep hold of you until they find out who you are.

All she had to do was walk away. None of her rights would then have been in jeopardy.

[david small]

So the police have culpability, and are to behave responsibly and adequately to a acceptable extent. Who’d have thought it?

[youngmafbog]

This case is half a dozen of one and half a dozen of the other.

She is obviously one of those nutters that the Police have to deal with every day, why on earth they found it necessary to strip search for the relatively minor offences let alone then act totally unprofessionally is beyond me. There will always be people like her, they should have simply arrested her for obstructing the police in their duties banged her in a cell for the night and then let her go, reporting her to the CPS.

[webbo3]

\\Dr Koshka Duff was arrested in 2013 after trying to help a black teenager who was subject to a stop-and-search.//

\\The boy was found to have a knife, which Dr Duff had not been aware of when she intervened.//

Stupid woman he may have just stabbed someone, should have kept her nose out.

[Peter Pedant]

// it's not surprising if they get a little peed off at times.//
yeah but that doesnt mean they can kick the crap out of well a victim

[pastafreak]

17:15...my words exactly.
I don't see where her mistaken behaviour deserved the treatment she received.

[andy-hughes]

I would conclude that one instance of inappropriate behaviour led to another.

AS NJ points out, correctly as always, the woman should not have interfered, and was correctly arrested.

But that does not excuse the inappropriate language and manner with which she was treated while in custody.

That behaviour, for which the police have apologised and compensated her, makes her a 'victim' in the true sense of the word.

Because her situation was self-inflicted, it does not absolve the police from their responsibilities to behave properly and maintain their professional standards.

[naomi24]

I wonder how much that little exercise cost the public purse? She clearly holds the police in scant regard, and to introduce the murder of Sarah Everard into the equation is beyond contemptible. Despite the frustration her obstructive behaviour must have caused, the police should have risen above her obvious disdain and behaved differently, but she's not a victim. She's the author of her own misfortune. I've no sympathy whatsoever for trouble makers like her.

[Gromit]

And have the Officers been sacked?
The tax payers have suffered a substantial financial loss in a payout to their victim due to their offensive and unprofessional behaviour.

[jim360]

She's a victim because the police involved -- all of them, it seems -- abused their power. It matters not a jot that maybe she could have acted differently. The abuse of power and authority is orders of magnitude more serious than the act of handing somebody a card, and then being uncooperative by going limp, refusing to declare a name, etc.

[naomi24]

If she had more respect for the police none of it would have happened, gromit. She claims to have been terrified but terrified people don't continue to refuse to comply. Troublemaker - first class.

[Togo]

// what goes through people's heads?//


OOhhh compensayshun.

[Gromit]

naomi24

She did nothing wrong. The Police did not respect her, they were abusive. They have been fined.