Solicitor asked to remove underwear....

Probably had a metal wire bra that she really shouldn't have been wearing to a prison or an airport as it will set off metal detectors. The staff did their job not allowing it in because it could be removed from the bra and passed to the prisoner and possibly used as a weapon.

Honesty how you can become a lawyer and not think about situations like this is beyond me.....

Sounds like the prison guards were just following breast practice

Cool story. She sounds a bit precious. But, I'll wait for the full facts as this is a loaded one sided article imo. There's no mention if it stopped going off once she removed it? Because if it was sounding while she was wearing it, and didn't sound when she wasn't... well, I'm no expert in the area, but that would sound like the bra was setting it off. Like, should they have just let her on regardless? I'm not going to get into possibilities, but there are possibilities so it's best to ensure the alarm doesn't go off before letting someone in. This is what it will hinge on imo. If the alarm stopped after the removal, then I don't think she has a case... And the article does say she continued and covered with a jacket, so I'm guessing the bra was the issue here.

The article doesn't make it clear if the male colleague who "had previously attended to visit the same client and the alarm sounded three times on passing through the scanner" was allowed through on three previous occasions even though the alarm sounded on each of the three occasions or whether it refers to one previous occasion when her male colleague had to pass through the scanner repeatedly and also was not allowed enter the prison until he passed through without the alarm sounding. If the latter I don't see how she was treated any differently to her male colleague and it's a lot of fuss about nothing.

bubblypop wrote: »

You can turn off either end of the metal detector.
So, just the bottom half is turned on, or vice versa

But the wire itself in the bra could be adapted to be thicker which could then be a weapon.

The scanner is there for safety reasons. They said they couldnt let her in if she set it off. they provided a private space she could remove it.

Its not like she was made get changed out in the open so they could observe her.

bubblypop wrote: »

Noone should ever be asked to remove their underwear.
How many women do you see taking off their bras in airports?

If the machine is still alarming, a female prison officer could use the small handheld scanner, then a quick pat down.
Not difficult, everyone understands, and no embarrassing or making a show of anyone

For very good reasons, sensitivity levels are set much higher (more sensitive) on the prisons scanners than at airports. As a professional entering a prison, she should have known this and removed the underwiring or wear non wired garments before she attempted to gain entry.

The J Stands for Jay wrote: »

No-one is likely to make a shiv in an airport either.

Or bring in box cutter knives...

Kimbot wrote: »

Incident happened on June 11th last year, so at the start of all the covid stuff. Maybe the officers had direction that they couldnt pat down people entering due to covid restrictions etc.......

That's exactly what happened. She shouldn't have been asked to take off her bra though. But there's no pat downs being done. The wand will detect the metal in the bra but what's not to say she hadn't got a phone tucked in there? Just saying.
The correct procedure would have been not to facilitate her visit. Let her come back again with non underwired bra that won't set the metal detector off.

I previously knew someone serving a prison sentence, and have been a visitor at 3 different prisons on numerous occasions. They're strict with the security, obviously. You can't even bring your keys in. I wasn't ever allowed wear my Apple Watch in, because it's an electronic communication device. That said, I was with women when visiting that definitely would have been wearing underwire bras, and they never set off the sensors. Maybe it was the particular bra, or the particular sensor. Either way, you comply with the rules, or you don't get in. There's been Solicitors found smuggling stuff in to their clients in prisons, so it's not like she should get some special treatment.

Someone I know - who most definitely is not involved in drugs at all (they're the most straight laced person you could ever meet, and work in a job where they're tested regularly for safety reasons) - was prevented from visiting one day because the sniffer dog reacted when sniffing them. That was an instant refusal for entry. He was chatting to the handler after, and the guy said that it could have been just that he was sitting beside someone in the waiting room who'd recently smoked a joint. But once the dog reacts, doesn't matter who you are, that's it.

Another person I know was behind a young woman with a baby going into Mountjoy. Woman had a changing bag, which the guards asked for. She protested, saying it was just nappies and they shouldn't be searching her little baby's stuff. Sure enough when the bag went though the xray, it set it off and when they searched it, out came a 10 inch knife. How she thought she'd get away with that is anyone's guess, but she was hauled off.

a pair of fekin womens knickers!