Male police officers can intimately search women. New guidance

Datun not on the basis they are trans?

On the basis they are not female then?

''Removing clothing: police powers
A police officer can ask you to take off your coat, jacket or gloves.

The police might ask you to take off other clothes and anything you’re wearing for religious reasons - for example a veil or turban. If they do, they must take you somewhere out of public view.

If the officer wants to remove more than a jacket and gloves they must be the same sex as you.''

www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

Sex is a protected characteristic and is based on your biology, not your beliefs.

Why are police officers trying to rewrite laws? On whose authority are they doing that?

Aren't they supposed to be politically neutral?

And aren't they supposed to use their time to catch criminals?

Can a TRA please be clear about this: does a woman (should a woman) no longer legally have the right to refuse to be intimately touched and handled - in this situation possibly by force - by someone born male, in possession of a penis? Yes or no.

The TRAs on here will say you can refuse a transwoman HCP, but not on the basis that they are trans. So you can absolutely refuse them, but in real life, can't say why.

That's their most reasonable stance.

I've no idea how it works with the police, though. On what basis are you allowed to refuse to search? Other than it's someone of the opposite sex.

Pop all of the guidance that you posted works absolutely fine with this once you accept the false premise that "transwomen are women, transwomen are female" etc. That is the magical equation that makes everything "work". And that is why it has to be resisted so strongly.

PLEASE, LURKING JOURNALISTS - WRITE ABOUT THIS

What charmed lives the men who came up with this policy must have - never experiencing the vulnerability of being female in a world of far too many creepy perverted men who obsess about getting non-consented access to female's bodies.

A charmed fucking life.

This is currently illegal.

www.sophiecook.me.uk/564-2/

Clinton Blackburn booked Sophie Cook (the male person on an All Women Shortlist in Labour) to give a talk to his police officers.

No doubt paid for by taxpayers.

Coppers seem to have a lot of time on their hands in Surrey.

Absolutely unacceptable.

I wish we had a button that says "report to the Daily Mail".

Thinking this through. As part of a country lines operation police pick up a young female who they think may be carrying drugs. They also suspect that she may be the victim of modern slavery. (And indeed may want to have reason to arrrest her for her own immediate safety.) She needs to be searched by a woman. End of.

I thought this was one of those things we were told would never happen, like the whole smear test debacle? And if you're unhappy with the person provided to do whatever that you request someone else?

Can a TRA please be clear about this: does a woman (should a woman) no longer legally have the right to refuse to be intimately touched and handled - in this situation possibly by force - by someone born male, in possession of a penis? Yes or no.

HomeStar

I’m so relieved that I won’t be searched by a penis-owner unless they’re a penis-owner with an obsessive fetish, that’s great news, thanks Stonewall!

Gosh, that's it in a nutshell.

Sorry to use the c word (for clarity) but I'd rather be searched by a cis male officer than "Abi" who will no doubt be getting off on using women as an accessory to their AGP fetish.

Every day there seems to be a new story about the police revelling in their fucking misogyny.

Clinton is silent on how this interacts with the actual law in this country.

Still cannot understand how feelings trump material reality here. Actual insanity.

This is truly awful. :-(

popchyk the guidance you posted is well written and clear.

And it shows perfectly why the word ‘woman’ needs to mean an adult human female.

This is absolutely disgraceful. Needs to be in the press

Not interested in how someone 'identifies'. And if you're there to do a job, your responsibilities and care towards the person you are providing care/service towards come over your own personal special authentic self.

This is also supposing that women are going to just go along with prioritising the needs and feelings of a mtf officer and co operate nicely. Good luck with that.

Askma - nobody is thinking this through. Top down, ideological policies being imposed on staff and vulnerable people without a single iota of understanding of the complexities.

What happens with non-binaries? Can they search everyone, no one, or only other non-binaries?

What happens if there’s no non-binary officer available to search a non-binary suspect, does someone have to temporarily identify that way to do the search?

How much longer will the errors in EHCR guidance be allowed to propagate out in nonsense such as this?

And all the time wasted in the future by men with hurty feelz because they've been misgendered and reporting it as hate crime, whilst women suffering domestic violence will be ignored due to lack of resources.

This is the only download I could find on their site that refers to searching. I'm not sure where they say transwomen can search women. But with Stonewall involved...

The law states that chief officers are responsible for providing corresponding operational guidance and
instructions for the deployment of trans officers and staff under their direction and control in relation to duties
which involve carrying out, or being present at, any of the searches and procedures described in Code A and
Code C of PACE. The guidance and instructions must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and should therefore
complement the approaches in Annex F, Code A and Annex L, Code C of PACE.
Guidelines are currently being reviewed at a national level in relation to both strip and stop searches and this
document will be updated in line with any decisions made.

docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c940a8_aba0a8dd7b9b41adb76c0319bf81914c.pdf

I'm already encountering situations with searches.

I work on a secure mental health unit. Male patients should be searched by male staff, female by female. We have a ftm person at the moment (no hormones, no surgery, no grc) who wants to be treated as male and is nursed on a male ward.

They only want to be searched by female staff though. While this is a good thing for our male staff (who were understandably worried) it does then cause other questions.

Can our other male patients start insisting on female staff searching them? How do we justify refusing this? What happens if we get a mtf?

The cognitive dissonance is baffling.