“The searches that women endure on admission to an ISU and the anti-rip gowns they are forced to wear did not appear to prevent self-harm. In fact, as discussed, antirip gowns and bedding were frequently used by women to self-harm with.” I concur with the Chief Ombudsman’s assessment and repeat my recommendation from 2017 & 2020 for privacy screens to be used where cells are on camera. The assertion that, as was suggested to me at ARWCF, women could “get on the intercom and tell us when they are about to have a shower so we can cover the monitor screen”, seemed, especially in the context of staff shortages, unrealistic. There were numerous incidents of the sort described above, involving the forceable undressing of women whilst she is restrained by four officers, in order to dress her with an anti-rip gown. In this context it is useful to be reminded of the UN Bangkok Rules regarding searches: Bangkok Rule 19 Effective measures shall be taken to ensure that women prisoners’ dignity and respect are protected during personal searches, which shall only be carried out by women staff who have been properly trained in appropriate searching methods and in accordance with established procedures. Bangkok Rule 20 Alternative screening methods, such as scans, shall be developed to replace strip searches and invasive body searches, in order to avoid the harmful psychological and possible physical impact of invasive body searches. The searches that women endure on admission to an ISU and the anti-rip gowns they are forced to wear did not appear to prevent self-harm. In fact, as discussed, anti-rip gowns and bedding were frequently used by women to self-harm with, suggesting that their use was not only a point of friction, but also, ineffective in preventing self-harm. 44