I have not said whether or not I approve of what happened; I have called for more facts before forming a conclusion.
But it is simply incorrect to describe as an "assault", an action carried out lawfully (if it was) for the purposes of law enforcement.
One can debate whether the actions of law enforcement in this case were "reasonable", "proportionate", etc, and clearly there are valid arguments on both sides. But it seems to be that the majority of posters have only considered the impact on the (innocent) women involved, ignoring that a serious crime potentially had been committed, with a very vulnerable victim, and that law enforcement have a duty to investigate this.
I wonder whether those crying "assault", "disgrace", etc. accept that there exist circumstances in which law enforcement may carry out intimate examinations for the purposes of detecting and investigating crime, for example uncovering hidden drugs? Or do you believe that any intimate examination carried out against the informed and free consent of the subject, is automatically an "assault", or just "wrong"?