News

“Controversy in Policing: Can Strip-Searching Children Be Effective? Concerns Over Misuse Persist”_l

A report by the children’s commissioner says nothing is found in half of strip-searches of children and its use has a racial disparity. Can its implementation ever be balanced?

When is it reasonable, necessary and proportionate for agents of the state, such as police officers, to take actions that are likely to leave a child traumatised?

There is little dispute that compelling anyone, let alone a child, to expose their intimate body parts against their will to a stranger causes real emotional pain. But police believe strip-searching can be a useful tool.

The police believe the use of “plugging”, the secretion of illegal drugs, increased with the growth of the “county lines” phenomenon, which saw children used as mules to move drugs from big cities to smaller towns.

Young people have been lured or threatened by drugs gangs who believe police will be reluctant to target people aged under 18.

Monday’s report from the children’s commissioner found that in almost nine out of 10 strip searches, officers gave suspicion of drug possession as the reason.

A spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) said: “Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is carrying unlawful items secreted on their person (eg drugs or weapons) and the items will not be voluntarily surrendered, then to ensure the child is not exposed to serious harm by allowing continued possession, a strip search may be appropriate.

“The police are under a positive duty to protect life and prevent an individual coming to serious harm or being subject of degrading treatment through the unlawful acts of another, eg child criminal exploitation.

“To leave children in possession of illegal items that could threaten their life or safety may be in negligent breach of the child’s human rights.”

The report says that when young people are strip-searched, nothing is found in about half the cases. In comparison, evidence of a crime is found in about 25% of stops and searches on all ages, the police inspectorate reported last week.

Police use of strip-search powers carry an assessment, formal and informal, of the benefits versus the risks. After the Child Q scandal erupted in 2022, it was clear that police had been getting that balance wrong.

The report also highlights a racial disparity: black children are four times more likely to be strip-searched than their white counterparts. It fits a pattern of black people being disproportionately targeted by police powers.

As the NPCC said when launching a plan to reform their record on race in 2022: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a black ethnic group.

“The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is black.”

Some, including the NPCC chair, Gavin Stephens, believe this is explained by institutional racism. Officially, police forces and most of his fellow chiefs do not accept this.

The report from the children’s commissioner is the second in two months to raise serious concerns about the police power to strip-search people. The first, looking specifically at Greater Manchester police and strip searches of mainly adult women, made scathing criticisms. One victim described police as being on a “power trip”, and the report by Dame Vera Baird KC contained findings on strip searches being used as punishment for sins real and imagined by officers.

The suspicion remains, given these two reports, that power granted to fight crime is at least in some cases being misused, and having foreseeable scarring effects on the victims.

LEAVE A RESPONSE

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Cabinet ministers were branded ‘hypocrites’ last night for claiming soaring amounts on expenses to heat their second homes while stripping ten million pensioners of their winter fuel payments. Eleven of Sir Keir Starmer‘s Cabinet have relied on taxpayer-funded help to pay their energy bills, analysis of expenses receipts reveals, with the amount they claimed soaring by 75 per cent over three years. Critics last night said it ‘wasn’t a good look’ amid warnings that hundreds of thousands of pensioners will be forced to choose between ‘heating or eating’ because of Labour’s overhaul. Among the claimants was Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who announced last month that she was axing cold-weather payments for millions. She said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion ‘black hole’ in the public finances she claims was left behind by the Tories. Eleven of Sir Keir Starmer ‘s Cabinet have relied on taxpayer-funded help to pay their energy bills, analysis of expenses receipts reveals. Pictured: Figures of six top Labour ministers Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s cabinet pose for a photo with Volodymyr Zelenskyy last month Critics last night said it ‘wasn’t a good look’ amid warnings that hundreds of thousands of pensioners will be forced to choose between ‘heating or eating’ because of Labour’s overhaul to winter fuel payments (stock image) But nearly half of this sum relates to inflation-busting pay hikes the new administration has offered to public sector workers, sparking accusations that they’re ‘robbing’ the elderly to appease their union baron ‘paymasters’. In 2021-22, Ms Reeves claimed £382 for help towards paying the energy bills at her second home. This shot up to £1,186 last year. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, whose department is responsible for denying elderly people the fuel payments, claimed £1,284 towards her energy bills in 2021-22, and £2,400 last year. Energy Secretary Ed Milliband’s claims also shot up from £650 to £1,100, while Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s surged from £1,052 to £1,896. In total, the 11 Cabinet ministers claimed £7,187 towards their gas and electricity bills in 2021-22, which soared to £12,620 for the first three-quarters of last year. Baroness Altmann, a former pensions minister in David Cameron’s government, said: ‘It makes you want to weep. It almost beggars belief that ministers don’t seem to realise how many millions of people in this country who are elderly are struggling to make ends meet. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, whose department is responsible for denying elderly people the fuel payments, claimed £1,284 towards her energy bills in 2021-22, and £2,400 last year Energy Secretary Ed Milliband’s claims also shot up from £650 to £1,100, while Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s surged from £1,052 to £1,896 Baroness Altmann, a former pensions minister in David Cameron’s government, said: ‘It makes you want to weep’ Dennis Reed, director of pensioners’ campaign group Silver Voices, said: ‘It’s rather sad and hypocritical’ ‘When they see the kinds of figures the Government says it can afford [in public sector pay rises], it will upset a lot of pensioners and make them very angry.’ Dennis Reed, director of pensioners’ campaign group Silver Voices, said: ‘It’s rather sad and hypocritical. ‘And I hope that, when Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall and the others come to consider whether they should continue this very cruel policy, they come to realise that this is not a good look. ‘I’m afraid it feeds into the narrative that there’s one rule for those at the top of society and another rule for the rest of us, and particularly those at the bottom end of the income scale.’ The claims relate to money that MPs, whose salaries rose to £91,346 this year, are entitled to receive for having to work from two locations if their constituency is not in London. They can claim money towards the cost of having a property near Westminster, including council tax and utilities. Tory energy spokesman Claire Coutinho said: ‘The Chancellor has made a choice to axe winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners whilst delivering inflation-busting pay rises demanded by her union paymasters and refusing to clamp down on the welfare bill’ There is no suggestion that those who have made claims have broken any rules. It came amid reports yesterday that Ms Reeves is refusing to publish a report into the impact of scrapping the winter payments. Impact assessments are routinely published when governments cut benefits, but Ms Reeves is ruling out releasing the findings – or even confirming if or when an investigation was carried out, the Sunday Express reported. Tory energy spokesman Claire Coutinho said: ‘The Chancellor has made a choice to axe winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners whilst delivering inflation-busting pay rises demanded by her union paymasters and refusing to clamp down on the welfare bill.’ She demanded that Ms Reeves ‘come clean’ and admit exactly how many pensioners will suffer. Tory MP Dr Caroline Johnson added: ‘Cold homes are associated with excess winter deaths. The pension credit thresholds are low. If elderly people cannot afford to heat their homes they are at increased risk of becoming ill.’ Pensioners face more misery after experts at the Cornwall Insight consultancy said they believe energy bills will jump by as much as £150 this winter. They think the energy price cap will be hiked by as much as 10 per cent, from the current level of £1,568 for a ‘typical’ household, when the regulator Ofgem reviews it this week. Adam Scorer, boss of fuel poverty charity National Energy Action, said: ‘If these alarming estimates are confirmed by Ofgem on Friday, energy bills and energy debt will stretch household finances beyond breaking point.’ A Labour spokesman said: ‘The accommodation costs budget is designed to meet costs incurred by MPs as a result of working from two permanent locations. MPs of all parties are entitled to this, and they continue paying their utility bills for their own homes like everyone else.’H