Autistic girl 16 arrested for saying police officer looked like her lesbian nana

I would.hope it is about law and/or protocol more than respect for the autistic girls privacy Anniebach
But as I dont really know what their motives are, I concede your idea is a possibility.

Why should the police release any footage, the girl wasn’t charged, unlike her mother they are showing respect for her privacy

No problem

Thank you👍

😊 I &was^ paraphrasing and of course you can have an apology for using words you may not have chosen.

My brain runs faster than my typing, so I apologise for my mistake.

Sorry crossed post

Namsnanny, I’ve scrolled back through the posts and mar no point have I written the words that you have put in italics and attributed to me.

I would like you to acknowledge that you have made a mistake there.

If you felt you were paraphrasing then the word I would have chosen was could not would.

Unlike the mother they are bound by privacy snd what they can release into the public domain about identified individuals.

That is why I have said I hope she does because then all footage can be made public. Until then we have only one small snippet recorded and possibly edited taken from one point of view.

Would she agree to have all footage released do you think?

I’d still be interested to know what the illegal action was if you have time to tell me.

Lathyrus

What is it that’s against the law exactly?

Genuine question Namsnanny.

😊
It was not a public order offence

It was not a hate crime, none of the words constitute a hate crime

Given that the police should know the basic law they use to arrest someone.

That alone is gross incompetence

Then there is use of extreme force to take her into custody.

Force has to be appropriate.

But it's not me saying this it is other police officers

Plus anyone can find.out this for themselves
Not getting at you L

Lathyrus I wish the police would release the cam footage

do you have any thoughts on why the Yorkshire Police wouldnt just do that?

My thoughts are, if it upheld the position of the police at the scene, it would be in their interest to show it, and quell any clamor on twitter fb ect.

They would be exonerated immediately

What is it that’s against the law exactly?

Genuine question Namsnanny.

growstuff

Namsnanny

growstuff

pinkquartz

I thought that the mum's cancer was mentioned to explain why she was asleep at the time.

Wasn't it 1am? Most people are asleep then. I just don't see that it's relevant.

Maybe it was or wasnt.

Maybe there was a pile on, on fb about the Mothers behaviour?

Clearly it was felt some readers would benefit from addition background information.

The problem is imv, no matter how much info, people will still add their own spin.

The curse of democracy 🤣

As the police were at fault and broke the law, it adds nothing of relevance.

You don't know that the police broke the law.

There was certainly a pile-on, but it wasn't against the mother. IMO GSM is right. The cancer detail was added to gain sympathy.

I know at least 2 ex police officers have said catagoricaly, with no ambiguity, that it is indeed against the law (I've mentioned this before, the information is available if you wish to verify my point).

Is she still going to sue?

Or did someone tell her that would put all the footage, from body cams as well, into the public domain.

I wish all the recordings of whole incident could be released.

Germanshepherdsmum

She didn’t have to post her film on social media did she? That was her choice.

The mother has actually removed historic Facebook posts since this all broke.

Namsnanny

growstuff

pinkquartz

I thought that the mum's cancer was mentioned to explain why she was asleep at the time.

Wasn't it 1am? Most people are asleep then. I just don't see that it's relevant.

Maybe it was or wasnt.

Maybe there was a pile on, on fb about the Mothers behaviour?

Clearly it was felt some readers would benefit from addition background information.

The problem is imv, no matter how much info, people will still add their own spin.

The curse of democracy 🤣

As the police were at fault and broke the law, it adds nothing of relevance.

You don't know that the police broke the law.

There was certainly a pile-on, but it wasn't against the mother. IMO GSM is right. The cancer detail was added to gain sympathy.

She didn’t have to post her film on social media did she? That was her choice.

Germanshepherdsmum

Is plastering footage of your drunken daughter being arrested all over social media acting in her best interests?

We dont know what choices the mother had at her disposal.

growstuff

pinkquartz

I thought that the mum's cancer was mentioned to explain why she was asleep at the time.

Wasn't it 1am? Most people are asleep then. I just don't see that it's relevant.

Maybe it was or wasnt.

Maybe there was a pile on, on fb about the Mothers behaviour?

Clearly it was felt some readers would benefit from addition background information.

The problem is imv, no matter how much info, people will still add their own spin.

The curse of democracy 🤣

As the police were at fault and broke the law, it adds nothing of relevance.

Is plastering footage of your drunken daughter being arrested all over social media acting in her best interests?

Germanshepherdsmum

growstuff

Why is the fact that the mother had breast cancer relevant? I'm a cancer survivor (as are many others), but I wouldn't consider it had anything to do with an incident like this.

I'm not set against the girl at all, but we've only seen a snapshot of what happened, filmed by the mother. As the girl hasn't been charged, the public probably won't get to see any more, so we won't ever know what led up to it.

Nobody would mention that they had had cancer in this situation except to gain sympathy. It’s totally irrelevant. The mother has made a huge fuss about this incident and done her daughter no favours. I don’t understand why any mother who had her child’s best interests at heart would put footage of this incident on social media.

I dont understand why any mother who had her childs best interests at heart ...

Maybe her actions were in the best interests of her child?

pinkquartz

I thought that the mum's cancer was mentioned to explain why she was asleep at the time.

Wasn't it 1am? Most people are asleep then. I just don't see that it's relevant.

It more than likely was, as you say, to give more background info.
Of course everybody interprets things differently.

I thought that the mum's cancer was mentioned to explain why she was asleep at the time.

Galaxy

Because it's usually more effective than any complaints procedure.

Precisely

Because it's usually more effective than any complaints procedure.

growstuff

Why is the fact that the mother had breast cancer relevant? I'm a cancer survivor (as are many others), but I wouldn't consider it had anything to do with an incident like this.

I'm not set against the girl at all, but we've only seen a snapshot of what happened, filmed by the mother. As the girl hasn't been charged, the public probably won't get to see any more, so we won't ever know what led up to it.

Nobody would mention that they had had cancer in this situation except to gain sympathy. It’s totally irrelevant. The mother has made a huge fuss about this incident and done her daughter no favours. I don’t understand why any mother who had her child’s best interests at heart would put footage of this incident on social media.