Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being
a criminal offence ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
Child Q's school strip-search was gross misconduct
Two police officers who conducted the "humiliating" strip-search of a 15- year-old schoolgirl committed gross misconduct, a panel has found.
Misconduct has been proven in case of a third police officer, after the
girl, known as Child Q, was searched at her school in Hackney, east
London, in December 2020.
Child Q, who was wrongly suspected of possessing cannabis, was on her
period at the time and forced to expose her intimate parts while no appropriate adult was present.
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being
a criminal offence ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
Child Q's school strip-search was gross misconduct
Two police officers who conducted the "humiliating" strip-search of a 15- year-old schoolgirl committed gross misconduct, a panel has found.
Misconduct has been proven in case of a third police officer, after the
girl, known as Child Q, was searched at her school in Hackney, east
London, in December 2020.
Child Q, who was wrongly suspected of possessing cannabis, was on her
period at the time and forced to expose her intimate parts while no appropriate adult was present.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being
a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
[…]
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of >> drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been
addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures >> stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way >> when informed of the school’s suspicions.
Because, of course, sadly the only two options they had were to "slope
their shoulders and go on their way" or to strip her completely naked.
That's why the inquiry decided they were entirely reasonable in acting
as they did - they had no choice in the matter.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in
possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not
seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures >>> stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their
way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
Because, of course, sadly the only two options they had were to "slope
their shoulders and go on their way" or to strip her completely naked.
That's why the inquiry decided they were entirely reasonable in acting
as they did - they had no choice in the matter.
So the girl being black played no part in the actions of the police.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being
a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in
possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not
seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures
stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They >>>> would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their >>>> way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
Because, of course, sadly the only two options they had were to "slope
their shoulders and go on their way" or to strip her completely naked.
That's why the inquiry decided they were entirely reasonable in acting
as they did - they had no choice in the matter.
So the girl being black played no part in the actions of the police.
What? Your response bears no relation whatsoever to anything I said.
On 26/06/2025 14:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By being a police officer of the same gender
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was white?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 16:49:51 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/06/2025 14:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By being a police officer of the same gender
you mean sex, of course.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she was white.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was
white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she was >> white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 21:26:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she was >>> white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
Slur!!!!? They were sacked for gross misconduct! Not because of anything I said!
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she was >> white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she was white.
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was
white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she was >>> white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows
that it's almost certainly true.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 21:26:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she was >>> white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
Slur!!!!? They were sacked for gross misconduct! Not because of anything I said!
Op 26/06/2025 om 20:48 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk"How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not
being
a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was
white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if she
was
white.
How do you know that? And do we know the ethnicity of the police
officers involved?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being
a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 18:06:30 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of >> drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been
addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures >> stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way >> when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
[…]
Do you seriously suggest a white child in Surrey would have been strip-searched at all regarding a small quantity of cannabis, let alone without her parents or a responsible adult being present? Especially in the absence of any sufficient grounds for arrest. Well you can suggest it, but I don't think it is a serious suggestion.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 18:06:30 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of >> drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been
addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures >> stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way >> when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
[…]
Do you seriously suggest a white child in Surrey would have been strip-searched at all regarding a small quantity of cannabis, let alone without her parents or a responsible adult being present? Especially in the absence of any sufficient grounds for arrest. Well you can suggest it, but I don't think it is a serious suggestion.
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in
possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not
seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures
stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They >>>> would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their >>>> way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
Because, of course, sadly the only two options they had were to "slope
their shoulders and go on their way" or to strip her completely naked.
That's why the inquiry decided they were entirely reasonable in acting
as they did - they had no choice in the matter.
So the girl being black played no part in the actions of the police.
What? Your response bears no relation whatsoever to anything I said.
You may be able to deduce something from their names, Kristina Linge and
PC Rafal Szmydynski, who were guilty of gross misconduct, and PC
Victoria Wray who was guilty of just misconduct.
The officers were thrown under the bus to assuage that ruler of all considerations, namely ‘community tensions’.
Op 27/06/2025 om 08:52 schreef Spike:
The officers were thrown under the bus to assuage that ruler of all
considerations, namely ‘community tensions’.
Oh, come on! This never happens in Britain!
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and
tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity
and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies!
These officers should be prosecuted, never mind fired.
On 6/26/25 18:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 18:06:30 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in
possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not
seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures >>> stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on
their way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
[…]
Do you seriously suggest a white child in Surrey would have been
strip-searched at all regarding a small quantity of cannabis, let alone
without her parents or a responsible adult being present? Especially
in the absence of any sufficient grounds for arrest. Well you can
suggest it, but I don't think it is a serious suggestion.
Almost... months older than a teenager, in a place that was once part of Surrey, I was strip searched based upon a false suspicion of possession
of a £5 bag of cannabis.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their
will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if
she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows
that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity
and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
On 26 Jun 2025 at 20:43:28 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
According to the Metropolitan a man could search her, provided that he
said his gender was female. They may have retreated from that position recently.
On 27/06/2025 10:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
That's why they've been censured and dismissed.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 11:10:46 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/06/2025 10:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
That's why they've been censured and dismissed.
But they committed an assault. A criminal act.
I don't give a shit if their get told off and lose their jobs. That is a total irrelevance to the criminal justice system.
On 27 Jun 2025 at 09:55:35 BST, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 27/06/2025 om 08:52 schreef Spike:
The officers were thrown under the bus to assuage that ruler of all
considerations, namely ‘community tensions’.
Oh, come on! This never happens in Britain!
Some remarkable community tensions if they had to be "assuaged" five years after the event!
On 2025-06-27, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/25 18:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 18:06:30 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in
possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not
seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures
stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They >>>> would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on
their way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
[…]
Do you seriously suggest a white child in Surrey would have been
strip-searched at all regarding a small quantity of cannabis, let alone
without her parents or a responsible adult being present? Especially
in the absence of any sufficient grounds for arrest. Well you can
suggest it, but I don't think it is a serious suggestion.
Almost... months older than a teenager, in a place that was once part of
Surrey, I was strip searched based upon a false suspicion of possession
of a £5 bag of cannabis.
I was searched, including them putting their fingers inside my underwear,
in Leicester Square tube station. To be fair to them they said the drugs
dog had "indicated" me by sitting down next to me. To be fair to the drugs dog, I think it was indicating that it liked that I was patting it.
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their
will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if
she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows
that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and
tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity
and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never
mind fired.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end. >>>>
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows >>>> that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and
tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity >>> and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never
mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event, together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was white?
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their
will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if
she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows
that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and
tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity
and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never
mind fired.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 16:49:51 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/06/2025 14:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By being a police officer of the same gender
you mean sex, of course.
On 26/06/2025 20:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 16:49:51 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/06/2025 14:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By being a police officer of the same gender
you mean sex, of course.
Sex and gender used to be more or less synonymous until the trannies >appropriated the latter.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then
forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
On 26/06/2025 18:06, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of >> drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been
addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures >> stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way >> when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
What are these "safeguarding procedures" of which you speak?
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end. >>>>>
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows >>>>> that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and >>>> tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity >>>> and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never
mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event,
together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding >> policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end. >>>>
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows >>>> that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and
tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity >>> and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never
mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event, together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The wrong people have been thrown under the bus.
Op 27/06/2025 om 12:18 schreef Spike:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end. >>>>>
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows >>>>> that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and >>>> tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity >>>> and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never
mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event,
together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding >> policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The wrong people have been thrown under the bus.
What a shit of a country this has become if Police officers are
intimidated for doing their job.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 26/06/2025 18:06, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not being >>>>> a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
The school staff had a suspicion concerning the girl being in possession of >>> drugs. Whether that was reasonable or not does not seem to have been
addressed.
But don’t let the total failure of the school’s safeguarding procedures >>> stand in the way of making an unpleasant remark about the police. They
would have been wrong to have sloped their shoulders and gone on their way >>> when informed of the school’s suspicions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8zyjdj067o
What are these "safeguarding procedures" of which you speak?
This might get you started:
<https://www.hackneyservicesforschools.co.uk/extranet/safeguarding-education>
…and this:
<https://www.hackneyservicesforschools.co.uk/system/files?file=extranet/Safeguarding%20Children%20-%20Designated%20Safeguarding%20Lead.pdf>
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end. >>>>>
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows >>>>> that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and >>>> tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity >>>> and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking
the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you
not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never
mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event,
together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding >> policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as
the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons
of political correctness.
On 2025-06-28, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as
the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
Because the police arrived and took charge.
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >> of political correctness.
I have no idea why you are so desperate to exonerate these ex-police
officers of the wrong-doing they so clearly did. For the last time,
trying to blame the school for the actions of the police is an obvious non-starter.
On 2025-06-28, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as
the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
Because the police arrived and took charge.
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >> of political correctness.
I have no idea why you are so desperate to exonerate these ex-police
officers of the wrong-doing they so clearly did. For the last time,
trying to blame the school for the actions of the police is an obvious non-starter.
Do you seriously suggest a white child in Surrey would have been
strip-searched at all regarding a small quantity of cannabis, let alone
without her parents or a responsible adult being present? Especially
in the absence of any sufficient grounds for arrest. Well you can suggest it,
but I don't think it is a serious suggestion.
Almost... months older than a teenager, in a place that was once part of Surrey, I was strip searched based upon a false suspicion of possession
of a £5 bag of cannabis.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to >>>>>>> have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end. >>>>>>
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows >>>>>> that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and >>>>> tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity >>>>> and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking >>>>> the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you >>>> not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon
the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate,
and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the
police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never >>>> mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event, >>> together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding >>> policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as
the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons
of political correctness.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-28, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as >>> the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >>> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
Because the police arrived and took charge.
There was nothing to stop one of the school’s safeguarding team from pressing their case with the police, or calling for someone suitably experienced to attend.
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >>> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >>> of political correctness.
I have no idea why you are so desperate to exonerate these ex-police
officers of the wrong-doing they so clearly did. For the last time,
trying to blame the school for the actions of the police is an obvious
non-starter.
I stand by what I have said on the matter. Assuaging Community tensions appears to trump all else.
On 26/06/2025 15:35, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk"How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their will then >>>> forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off with it not
being
a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black.
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was
white?
What if the statistics show that black teens are statistically more
likely to be carrying marijuana (or knives)?
On 2025-06-28, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as
the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
Because the police arrived and took charge.
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >> of political correctness.
I have no idea why you are so desperate to exonerate these ex-police
officers of the wrong-doing they so clearly did. For the last time,
trying to blame the school for the actions of the police is an obvious non-starter.
On 6/28/25 12:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-28, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as >>> the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >>> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
Because the police arrived and took charge.
Inner city schools used to have a policy of blocking police access to
pupils, to protect them. It seems astonishing that the school wouldn't
make any effort to protect the interests of the child.
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >>> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >>> of political correctness.
I have no idea why you are so desperate to exonerate these ex-police
officers of the wrong-doing they so clearly did. For the last time,
trying to blame the school for the actions of the police is an obvious
non-starter.
I'm quite happy to believe the police are racist, heavy-handed, and I
don't have any problem with the verdict of gross misconduct. However, at first glance, it appears to be mainly the school's failure.
On 28 Jun 2025 at 10:31:50 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black. >>>>>>>>How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was >>>>>>>>>> white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end. >>>>>>>
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows >>>>>>> that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and >>>>>> tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity >>>>>> and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking >>>>>> the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you >>>>> not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon >>>>> the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate, >>>>> and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the >>>>> police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never >>>>> mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event, >>>> together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding
policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as
the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >> of political correctness.
Not, as most of us seem to think, for reasons of general civilisation and avoiding abuse of children?
On 28 Jun 2025 at 13:21:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I have no idea why you are so desperate to exonerate these ex-police
officers of the wrong-doing they so clearly did. For the last time,
trying to blame the school for the actions of the police is an obvious
non-starter.
I stand by what I have said on the matter. Assuaging Community tensions
appears to trump all else.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that if a white 15 year old girl had been treated like this on no better ground than that she smelled of cannabis smoke (not it would be likely to happen) people would not have been equally outraged? Because I would for one, and I expect her parents would have been. The community issue is precisely because this wouldn't happen to a white girl,
but if it did it would be just as indefensible.
On 28 Jun 2025 at 13:21:35 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I stand by what I have said on the matter. Assuaging Community tensions
appears to trump all else.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that if a white 15 year old girl had been treated like this on no better ground than that she smelled of cannabis smoke (not it would be likely to happen) people would not have been equally outraged? Because I would for one, and I expect her parents would have been. The community issue is precisely because this wouldn't happen to a white girl,
but if it did it would be just as indefensible.
If the police stopped your car and told you that they believed you had cannabis, would
you regard it as okay for them to take you in the back of their van, pull down your
pants and explore your anus?
I was searched, including them putting their fingers inside my underwear,
in Leicester Square tube station. To be fair to them they said the drugs
dog had "indicated" me by sitting down next to me. To be fair to the drugs dog, I think it was indicating that it liked that I was patting it.
On 28/06/2025 15:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Jun 2025 at 10:31:50 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black. >>>>>>>>>How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was
white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows
that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and >>>>>>> tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity
and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking >>>>>>> the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you >>>>>> not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon >>>>>> the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate, >>>>>> and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the >>>>>> police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never >>>>>> mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event, >>>>> together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding
policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as >>> the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >>> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >>> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >>> of political correctness.
Not, as most of us seem to think, for reasons of general civilisation and
avoiding abuse of children?
What 'abuse'? I see it as just initiating some useful embarrassment.
If the search had been properly authorised and monitored, would it still
be 'abuse' in your view? That's only a matter of paperwork and
formality; the search itself would have been exactly the same. And
there is no suggestion that it was carried out at all improperly.
What disincentive or punishment would *you* advocate for a child of 15
who turns up at school, as its safeguarding officer said, 'stoned' and reeking of an illegal drug?
On 28 Jun 2025 at 16:29:39 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/06/2025 15:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
Not, as most of us seem to think, for reasons of general civilisation and >>> avoiding abuse of children?
What 'abuse'? I see it as just initiating some useful embarrassment.
If the search had been properly authorised and monitored, would it still
be 'abuse' in your view? That's only a matter of paperwork and
formality; the search itself would have been exactly the same. And
there is no suggestion that it was carried out at all improperly.
What disincentive or punishment would *you* advocate for a child of 15
who turns up at school, as its safeguarding officer said, 'stoned' and
reeking of an illegal drug?
So you regard a strip search as appropriate non-judicial punishment for a misbehaving child? Some police might think this, but I doubt one would ever dare say it.
On 28 Jun 2025 at 16:29:39 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
What disincentive or punishment would *you* advocate for a child of 15
who turns up at school, as its safeguarding officer said, 'stoned' and
reeking of an illegal drug?
So you regard a strip search as appropriate non-judicial punishment for a misbehaving child? Some police might think this, but I doubt one would ever dare say it.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Jun 2025 at 10:31:50 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ?
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against their >>>>>>>>>>>>> will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how can I get off >>>>>>>>>>>>> with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was black. >>>>>>>>>How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this?
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl if she was
white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that way if >>>>>>>>>> she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police, you seem to
have lost little time in trying a different tack to gain the same end.
What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and everybody knows
that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy, doctrine, and >>>>>>> tactics means that the police had no choice about the girl’s ethnicity
and a potential crime to investigate, so Hayter’s comment is taking >>>>>>> the word ’true’ to the very outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true. Have you >>>>>> not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a child based upon >>>>>> the suspicion of cannabis possession is completely disproportionate, >>>>>> and doing so without an appropriate adult present etc is against the >>>>>> police force's own policies! These officers should be prosecuted, never >>>>>> mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of this event, >>>>> together with its total failure to follow through on their own safeguarding
policies, all of which placed the police in an invidious position.
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the school
did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the police did.
They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of acting as >>> the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the school >>> had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that none of >>> this would have taken place. The officers have been jettisoned for reasons >>> of political correctness.
Not, as most of us seem to think, for reasons of general civilisation and
avoiding abuse of children?
That’s what the school’s safeguarding system is for.
I’m having difficulty understanding why people aren’t grasping this simple
fact. After all, the clue’s in the name!
On 28/06/2025 15:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Jun 2025 at 10:31:50 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-27, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-26, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 15:35:27 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 26/06/2025 om 14:35 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 26 Jun 2025 at 14:26:35 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or is it still possible it could be charged as such ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just for discussion, if I had detained a child against >>>>>>>>>>>>> their will then forced them to strip whilst I ogled, how >>>>>>>>>>>>> can I get off with it not being a criminal offence ?
They presumably had reasonable suspicion that she was
black.
How is the fact that she is black playing a part in this? >>>>>>>>>>>
Are you saying that it would be ok to strip search a girl >>>>>>>>>>> if she was white?
More that they would never have considered doing it in that >>>>>>>>>> way if she was white.
Having failed to get away with one slur against the police,
you seem to have lost little time in trying a different tack >>>>>>>>> to gain the same end.
What on earth do you mean by "failed to get away with"?
He's stated something that's almost certainly true, and
everybody knows that it's almost certainly true.
The total failure of the school’s safeguarding policy,
doctrine, and tactics means that the police had no choice about
the girl’s ethnicity and a potential crime to investigate, so
Hayter’s comment is taking the word ’true’ to the very
outer limits of credibility.
That's ironic, given your statement is not even remotely true.
Have you not read anything about this case? Strip-searching a
child based upon the suspicion of cannabis possession is
completely disproportionate, and doing so without an appropriate
adult present etc is against the police force's own policies!
These officers should be prosecuted, never mind fired.
Once again you fail to even note the school’s initiation of
this event, together with its total failure to follow through on
their own safeguarding policies, all of which placed the police
in an invidious position.
The school didn't strip-search anyone, and no matter what the
school did or did not do, it cannot possibly excuse what the
police did. They are entirely to blame for their own misdeeds.
Are you really saying there was no-one at the school capable of
acting as the appropriate adult? Such as the Head of Safeguarding?
Having called the police it’s bordering on inconceivable that the
school had no idea of what happens next or what their obligations
were.
Why did safeguarding fail so spectacularly?
If the girl had been properly safeguarded, it’s conceivable that
none of this would have taken place. The officers have been
jettisoned for reasons of political correctness.
Not, as most of us seem to think, for reasons of general
civilisation and avoiding abuse of children?
What 'abuse'? I see it as just initiating some useful embarrassment.
If the search had been properly authorised and monitored, would it
still be 'abuse' in your view? That's only a matter of paperwork and formality; the search itself would have been exactly the same. And
there is no suggestion that it was carried out at all improperly.
What disincentive or punishment would *you* advocate for a child of
15 who turns up at school, as its safeguarding officer said, >
'stoned' and reeking of an illegal drug?
On 16:29 28 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
[quoted text muted]
It wasn't the first time Child Q appeared intoxicated according to
Hackney's 2022 review of safeguarding:
"A month before Child Q was strip searched, she was similarly
identified by the school as smelling of cannabis. On this occasion
Child Q was described by school staff as being intoxicated"
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:54:52 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 16:29 28 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
[quoted text muted]
It wasn't the first time Child Q appeared intoxicated according to
Hackney's 2022 review of safeguarding:
"A month before Child Q was strip searched, she was similarly
identified by the school as smelling of cannabis. On this occasion
Child Q was described by school staff as being intoxicated"
Cannabis use remains in the system for *months*. If child Q tested
negative at the time of this incident, then they are unlikely to have
used any in the previous 3 months.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:54:52 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 16:29 28 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
[quoted text muted]
It wasn't the first time Child Q appeared intoxicated according to
Hackney's 2022 review of safeguarding:
"A month before Child Q was strip searched, she was similarly
identified by the school as smelling of cannabis. On this occasion
Child Q was described by school staff as being intoxicated"
Cannabis use remains in the system for *months*. If child Q tested
negative at the time of this incident, then they are unlikely to have
used any in the previous 3 months.
Pancho wrote:
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim. Unless someone was
smoking at the time, I wouldn't expect the smell to be that strong.
Have you set foot into a UK high street in the last decade?
I would imagine it "sticks" to clothing and hair just like tobacco
smoke ...
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim. Unless someone was
smoking at the time, I wouldn't expect the smell to be that strong.
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim.
Pancho wrote:
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim. Unless someone was
smoking at the time, I wouldn't expect the smell to be that strong.
Have you set foot into a UK high street in the last decade? I would
imagine it "sticks" to clothing and hair just like tobacco smoke ...
On 6/30/25 10:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:54:52 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 16:29Â 28 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
[quoted text muted]
It wasn't the first time Child Q appeared intoxicated according to
Hackney's 2022 review of safeguarding:
   "A month before Child Q was strip searched, she was similarly
   identified by the school as smelling of cannabis. On this occasion >>>    Child Q was described by school staff as being intoxicated"
Cannabis use remains in the system for *months*. If child Q tested
negative at the time of this incident, then they are unlikely to have
used any in the previous 3 months.
Was she tested? Why would she be tested?
Regardless, if she "smelt of cannabis" and didn't have cannabis when searched, it seems reasonable to suspect she would not have had cannabis
on previous occasions either.
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim. Unless someone was
smoking at the time, I wouldn't expect the smell to be that strong.
It sounds like the type of thing a dishonest teacher might make up to
justify punishing a child they didn't like.
On 6/30/25 10:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 20:54:52 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 16:29 28 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
[quoted text muted]
It wasn't the first time Child Q appeared intoxicated according to
Hackney's 2022 review of safeguarding:
"A month before Child Q was strip searched, she was similarly
identified by the school as smelling of cannabis. On this occasion
Child Q was described by school staff as being intoxicated"
Cannabis use remains in the system for *months*. If child Q tested
negative at the time of this incident, then they are unlikely to have
used any in the previous 3 months.
Was she tested? Why would she be tested?
Regardless, if she "smelt of cannabis" and didn't have cannabis when searched, it seems reasonable to suspect she would not have had cannabis
on previous occasions either.
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim. Unless someone was
smoking at the time, I wouldn't expect the smell to be that strong. It
sounds like the type of thing a dishonest teacher might make up to
justify punishing a child they didn't like.
Given the report points to the implausibility of other evidence given by school staff, I think this "smelt of" claim smells of something other
than cannabis.
On 2025-06-30, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pancho wrote:
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim. Unless someone was
smoking at the time, I wouldn't expect the smell to be that strong.
Have you set foot into a UK high street in the last decade?
What you are smelling there is smoke from a lit joint.
If a child were to walk into school holding a lit joint then I think
it's safe to say that suspecting them to be in possession of cannabis
would be fair. (But strip-searching them would still be completely unacceptable.)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:42:30 +0100, Pancho wrote:
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim.
When I were a lad, all the local plod were convinced that Patchouli oil
was cannabis. For a while they believed there was a large highly
organised criminal enterprise in the town as "everyone smelled of
cannabis, but we can never find any ..."
I make no comment.
It's an illegal drug
But yes, I kind of know the answer to this because back in the 1970s
there was a theory that hippies scented themselves with patchouli oil to
mask the smell of cannabis.
On 2025-06-30, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Pancho wrote:
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim. Unless someone was
smoking at the time, I wouldn't expect the smell to be that strong.
Have you set foot into a UK high street in the last decade?
What you are smelling there is smoke from a lit joint.
If a child were to walk into school holding a lit joint then I think
it's safe to say that suspecting them to be in possession of cannabis
would be fair. (But strip-searching them would still be completely unacceptable.)
I would imagine it "sticks" to clothing and hair just like tobacco
smoke ...
I'm not sure your random imaginings are helping.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:42:30 +0100, Pancho wrote:
I'm very dubious of this smelt of cannabis claim.
When I were a lad, all the local plod were convinced that Patchouli oil
was cannabis. For a while they believed there was a large highly
organised criminal enterprise in the town as "everyone smelled of
cannabis, but we can never find any ..."
I make no comment.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:33:58 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,948 |