Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
It is surely of concern that assuming the police have a legal obligation to ensure that an appropriate adult was present, that they failed to do so in half of these cases.
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
It is surely of concern that assuming the police have a legal obligation to ensure that an appropriate adult was present, that they failed to do so in half of these cases.
They do not. To paraphrase the relevant section of PACE, the appropriate adult need not be present if (for example) the Juvenile makes it clear to the appropriate adult that they do not want them to be present at an intimate search. To give a simple example, a youth has concealed drugs hidden in shall we say a sensitive part of his anatomy. He is carrying them for his Dad. And his Mum is the appropriate adult...
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
It is surely of concern that assuming the police have a legal obligation to ensure that an appropriate adult was present, that they failed to do so in half of these cases.
They do not. To paraphrase the relevant section of PACE, the appropriate adult need not be present if (for example) the Juvenile makes it clear to the appropriate adult that they do not want them to be present at an intimate search. To give a simple example, a youth has concealed drugs hidden in shall we say a sensitive part of his anatomy. He is carrying them for his Dad. And his Mum is the appropriate adult...
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
It is surely of concern that assuming the police have a legal obligation to ensure that an appropriate adult was present, that they failed to do so in half of these cases.
They do not. To paraphrase the relevant section of PACE, the appropriate adult need not be present if (for example) the Juvenile makes it clear to the appropriate adult that they do not want them to be present at an intimate search. To give a simple example, a youth has concealed drugs hidden in shall we say a sensitive part of his anatomy. He is carrying them for his Dad. And his Mum is the appropriate adult...
Eight per thousand are successful.
?? Search? Stop and search? Stop hoping to search? Intimate search?
In the last of those, 48% resulted in further action. Which is a very high percentage.
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
It is surely of concern that assuming the police have a legal obligation to ensure that an appropriate adult was present, that they failed to do so in half of these cases.
They do not. To paraphrase the relevant section of PACE, the appropriate adult need not be present if (for example) the Juvenile makes it clear to the appropriate adult that they do not want them to be present at an intimate search. To give a simple example, a youth has concealed drugs hidden in shall we say a sensitive part of his anatomy. He is carrying them for his Dad. And his Mum is the appropriate adult...
Eight per thousand are successful.
?? Search? Stop and search? Stop hoping to search? Intimate search?
In the last of those, 48% resulted in further action. Which is a very high percentage.
Revealed: Met police strip-searched 650 children in two-year period Appropriate adults were often absent during the search, and the majority of children were innocent
De Souza questioned how far this “intrusive and traumatising” practice was necessary after figures showed that in 53% of cases no further action was taken. “This low level of successful searches arguably indicates that this intrusive practice may well not be justified or necessary in all cases.”
Her damning report, published on Monday, also raised concerns about “a lack of appropriate oversight” of police practice surrounding strip-searches after the data revealed that in one in five cases there was no way of knowing where it even took place.
Of 269 searches in 2021 for which the location of the search was recorded, 57% happened at a police station and 21% at a home address. De Souza’s report says 22% happened at another location but, “due to the low quality of recording practice, it is not possible to determine where these searches took place”.
The data showed the number of searches increased between 2018 and 2020, with 18% of all searches carried out in 2018, 36% in 2019 and 46% in 2020. Almost all of the children strip-searched (95%) were boys, and a quarter were 15 and under.
The commissioner launched her investigation following widespread outrage over the case of Child Q, a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was strip-searched by female Met officers in 2020 after she was wrongly suspected of carrying cannabis at her east London school.
The strip-search prompted days of protests in Hackney after it emerged the schoolgirl was searched without another adult present and in the knowledge that she was menstruating. Her parents were not contacted.
De Souza said she was “deeply shocked and concerned” after requesting the data from the Met police using her powers under the Children and Families Act. “I am also extremely concerned by the ethnic disproportionality shown in these figures, particularly given that ethnicity was determined to be such a key factor in the Child Q case.
“I am not reassured that what happened to Child Q was an isolated issue, but instead believe it may be a particularly concerning example of a more systemic problem around child protection within the Metropolitan police. I remain unconvinced that the Metropolitan police is consistently considering children’s welfare and wellbeing.” She now plans to seek the same data from all police forces.
The revelations in the report led to claims that the Met had been involved in “state-sanctioned” child abuse and the dehumanising of children, and another example of institutional racism plaguing Britain’s biggest force.
Deborah Coles of Inquest said: “This report is about state-sanctioned child abuse operating outside the law. It also reveals racist and discriminatory policing and the dehumanising of black children.”
Anna Edmundson, head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC, said : “It’s vital policing leaders and government commit to eliminating racism, discrimination and bias from policing to prevent further harm to children.”
The findings in the report that the majority of those children strip-searched were innocent of police suspicions, which triggered a shocked and angry response within policing itself and among those who oversee the Met.
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
It is surely of concern that assuming the police have a legal obligation to ensure that an appropriate adult was present, that they failed to do so in half of these cases.
They do not. To paraphrase the relevant section of PACE, the appropriate adult need not be present if (for example) the Juvenile makes it clear to the appropriate adult that they do not want them to be present at an intimate search. To give a simple example, a youth has concealed drugs hidden in shall we say a sensitive part of his anatomy. He is carrying them for his Dad. And his Mum is the appropriate adult...
Eight per thousand are successful.
?? Search? Stop and search? Stop hoping to search? Intimate search?
In the last of those, 48% resulted in further action. Which is a very high percentage.
National Stop and Search learning report, April 2022
The same Home Office data shows that of the 695,009 stops and searches carried during the year ending March 2021, 77% had a recorded outcome of ‘No further action’.
Unusual for the Times to be so sensationalist. Shows how desperate all newspapers are to remain relevant. Because that Headline was as misleading as a Mail article.
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
2,847 between 8 and 17. Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children. 24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15. 52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
These figures need context if they are to be meaningful. So:-
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures 2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas 3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
Apparently many of these searches took place in fast food outlets, the back of a police van, etc,etc.
Exactly. "Many". Not specified. In a group that included "in school".
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
It is surely of concern that assuming the police have a legal obligation to ensure that an appropriate adult was present, that they failed to do so in half of these cases.
They do not. To paraphrase the relevant section of PACE, the appropriate adult need not be present if (for example) the Juvenile makes it clear to the appropriate adult that they do not want them to be present at an intimate search. To give a simple example, a youth has concealed drugs hidden in shall we say a sensitive part of his anatomy. He is carrying them for his Dad. And his Mum is the appropriate adult...
Eight per thousand are successful.
?? Search? Stop and search? Stop hoping to search? Intimate search?
In the last of those, 48% resulted in further action. Which is a very high percentage.
National Stop and Search learning report, April 2022
The same Home Office data shows that of the 695,009 stops and searches carried during the year ending March 2021, 77% had a recorded outcome of ‘No further action’.
But there are always 2 sides to this sort of story. "Stop and search" is always going to happen a lot more than Intimate searches, for example.
There are individual examples of what seem to me to be clear racial profiling. But I remember the days of the SPG in London-where such examples were standard policy. As opposed to occasional instances. More progress is needed. But progress has been made.
Nearly 700,000 searches is a lot of searches. 77% no further action is a lot of searches that proved either fruitless or, at most, insufficiently conclusive.
But 23% led to further action. That is more than 150,000 occasions where a crime was discovered. Which is a lot of crimes.
I don't want people to be searched unnecessarily. But searches are a necessary part of policing.
Police did nothing for 18 months after two videos showing a nine-year-old girl being raped were uploaded, report reveals as watchdog slams delays and 'missed opportunities' in responding to allegations
The police watchdog has slammed forces across the country for failing to deal with dangerous child sex offenders - taking up to 18 months to make arrests in some cases.
I find this sort of Hearing to be a considerable waste of everyone's time.
6 of the accused were former policemen/women. They had already either resigned or been sacked. And the other 2 could not be bothered to attend the Hearing, which rather makes it a foregone conclusion.
The limited resources for bringing disciplinary/misconduct hearings should concentrate solely on current police officers-as is the case for just about every other job. The enormous expense discussing the conduct of former Officers could be much better spent disciplining/dismissing people who are still there, rather than shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Comments
So-3,000 searches of "youths" on last 4 years. Of which 24% (less than 750) involved people aged 15 or less (so the rest are presumably 16/17). And "a few" were aged 8 or 9. Which apparently keeps the Children's Commissioner awake at night.
How about the thousands of youths involved in the Drugs trade? The routine use of young children to carry drugs, because of the difficulties of searching children?
Because, if I was the Children's Commissioner, that is what would be my priority.
Would everyone prefer it if all drug dealers could use young children as their "get out of jail free" card?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rogue-officer-fears-after-police-invite-failed-job-candidates-back-to-meet-targets/ar-AA194uPv?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5e6f994576174b29ad673862555f9b48&ei=35
Black children were up to 6 times more likely to be strip searched than white children.
24% were of children between the ages of 10 and 15.
52% were conducted without an appropriate adult present.
1. Cannot compare 16/17 year-olds with 10-year-olds. Totally different procedures
2. Black children are far more likely to live in inner cities and areas where drug crime is rife. Need to compare statistics with White children living in the same areas
3. Ask yourself:-why was no appropriate adult present? For 16/17 year olds, can see that. But under-16s should either be in school, or with an appropriate adult close enough to know what is going on. Long before any strip search takes place
No context. Again. Put yourself in the position of the police, or the child. There is a need for immediacy in relation to carrying drugs. As an example, areas of fast food outlets can easily be cordoned off. Many kids voluntarily show where the drugs are because they are terrified of their parents showing up.
Back of a police van should be rare. But it should be remembered that passers by cannot see into the back of a police van.
Whenever a search is carried out without an appropriate adult present, the probative value will be considerably less. But is should be remembered that the Police are not trying to criminalise the kid-they are trying to get to the people far higher up the chain.
People seem to both want the police to catch criminals and stop them doing their job.
Better placed in a conspiracy thread.
Search? Stop and search? Stop hoping to search? Intimate search?
In the last of those, 48% resulted in further action. Which is a very high percentage.
Revealed: Met police strip-searched 650 children in two-year period
Appropriate adults were often absent during the search, and the majority of children were innocent
De Souza questioned how far this “intrusive and traumatising” practice was necessary after figures showed that in 53% of cases no further action was taken. “This low level of successful searches arguably indicates that this intrusive practice may well not be justified or necessary in all cases.”
Her damning report, published on Monday, also raised concerns about “a lack of appropriate oversight” of police practice surrounding strip-searches after the data revealed that in one in five cases there was no way of knowing where it even took place.
Of 269 searches in 2021 for which the location of the search was recorded, 57% happened at a police station and 21% at a home address. De Souza’s report says 22% happened at another location but, “due to the low quality of recording practice, it is not possible to determine where these searches took place”.
The data showed the number of searches increased between 2018 and 2020, with 18% of all searches carried out in 2018, 36% in 2019 and 46% in 2020. Almost all of the children strip-searched (95%) were boys, and a quarter were 15 and under.
The commissioner launched her investigation following widespread outrage over the case of Child Q, a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was strip-searched by female Met officers in 2020 after she was wrongly suspected of carrying cannabis at her east London school.
The strip-search prompted days of protests in Hackney after it emerged the schoolgirl was searched without another adult present and in the knowledge that she was menstruating. Her parents were not contacted.
De Souza said she was “deeply shocked and concerned” after requesting the data from the Met police using her powers under the Children and Families Act. “I am also extremely concerned by the ethnic disproportionality shown in these figures, particularly given that ethnicity was determined to be such a key factor in the Child Q case.
“I am not reassured that what happened to Child Q was an isolated issue, but instead believe it may be a particularly concerning example of a more systemic problem around child protection within the Metropolitan police. I remain unconvinced that the Metropolitan police is consistently considering children’s welfare and wellbeing.” She now plans to seek the same data from all police forces.
The revelations in the report led to claims that the Met had been involved in “state-sanctioned” child abuse and the dehumanising of children, and another example of institutional racism plaguing Britain’s biggest force.
Deborah Coles of Inquest said: “This report is about state-sanctioned child abuse operating outside the law. It also reveals racist and discriminatory policing and the dehumanising of black children.”
Anna Edmundson, head of policy and public affairs at the NSPCC, said : “It’s vital policing leaders and government commit to eliminating racism, discrimination and bias from policing to prevent further harm to children.”
The findings in the report that the majority of those children strip-searched were innocent of police suspicions, which triggered a shocked and angry response within policing itself and among those who oversee the Met.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/08/police-data-raises-alarm-over-welfare-of-strip-searched-children
National Stop and Search learning report, April 2022
The same Home Office data shows that of the 695,009 stops and searches carried during the year ending March 2021, 77% had a recorded outcome of ‘No further action’.
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/national-stop-and-search-learning-report-april-2022
There are individual examples of what seem to me to be clear racial profiling. But I remember the days of the SPG in London-where such examples were standard policy. As opposed to occasional instances. More progress is needed. But progress has been made.
Nearly 700,000 searches is a lot of searches. 77% no further action is a lot of searches that proved either fruitless or, at most, insufficiently conclusive.
But 23% led to further action. That is more than 150,000 occasions where a crime was discovered. Which is a lot of crimes.
I don't want people to be searched unnecessarily. But searches are a necessary part of policing.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/met-officer-guilty-raping-woman-131611401.html
The police watchdog has slammed forces across the country for failing to deal with dangerous child sex offenders - taking up to 18 months to make arrests in some cases.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11941105/Police-did-18-months-two-videos-showing-nine-year-old-girl-raped-uploaded.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/police-hit-back-stopping-motorcyclists-172024600.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/sir-mark-rowley-accused-of-misleading-public-over-police-sackings/ar-AA19GmHN?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ac619a69dd544f72aa785720ec616c08&ei=12
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/met-officers-shared-harvey-price-111604146.html
6 of the accused were former policemen/women. They had already either resigned or been sacked. And the other 2 could not be bothered to attend the Hearing, which rather makes it a foregone conclusion.
The limited resources for bringing disciplinary/misconduct hearings should concentrate solely on current police officers-as is the case for just about every other job. The enormous expense discussing the conduct of former Officers could be much better spent disciplining/dismissing people who are still there, rather than shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.