Prisons Judicial Review: Judgement

Good luck tonight, KPSS, you're doing such important work.

Good luck with the interview tonight kpss!

What this judgement means in terms of safeguarding children doesn't bear thinking about. If it can be so openly stated by the judiciary that the protection of women from sex offenders can be abandoned in favour of the demands of these criminals wanting access to their victims for validation purposes, then who is going to hold the line for children's safety.
We've already seen how the political activist groups pushing queer theory have been able to access schools with (until recently) no restrictions....

Good luck kpss
What should I Google to contribute to your fundraising?

well done Keep.

Looking forward to finding out who you are!

Make sure you haven't got any mumsnet posts about the rest of your personal life before you out yourself :)

So - the adult males who are less likely to commit sex attacks on women and girls are lawfully excluded from intimate female spaces, but adult males who are the most likely to commit sex attacks on women and girls are lawfully included.

Yesssssss. Ffs

For people writing to their mp's about this.

The gra 2004 was under a labour government. To be fair they had to respond to the European Court ruling, but the act is badly worded.

The EA 2010 was passed right at the end of a Labour government. Although it mainly brought in existing law, some of the bad situation we find ourself in now could have been avoided at that point, by properly dealing with how it interacted with the gra, and how parts of the act interact with each other.

The EA statutory code of practice was passed in 2011 by the Conservative led coalition government. The wording compounded some of the problems, making it more difficult to use the exemptions which allow tw to be excluded from female services if proportionate, as the act allows.

The policies which we object to on this board have often been introduced since 2010, ie under a Conservative led government. The moj prison policy is lawful, but a policy which is better for women could also be legal. It is a choice made by a Conservative government.

So, depending on the party of your mp, you might want to point out how their party has contributed to allowing intact male born sex offenders being placed in prison with women.

She also mentioned a case where a prisoner tried to change his name to 'God Almighty' so that the officers would have to address his as such

That was Andrew Burns, a very dangerous prisoner who now identifies as a woman.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1492364/transgender-prisoner-tiffany-scott-andrew-burns-dangerous-sheriff/amp/

Has anyone posted the James Kirkup article yet?

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-court-judgement-that-confirms-women-pay-for-trans-rights

I think this, more than any of the other judgements, demonstrates that the GRA is an absolute nonsense and that there is no way that you can ever protect women if the law says that men can change sex.

I'm not depressed like I normally am the day after a setback.

Partly because we literally couldn't buy the publicity this loss has given us. And partly because I'm more in a 'fuck this shit we riot at dawn' space.

Judicial reviews don't work for us because so much of this crap is legal. So let's fucking sue.

Can we crowdfund for the victim? Can we set up the GC Law Project and have a fighting fund for cases?

And if it's legal, the law must change. Writing to my MP today.

there is a good thread on twitter explaining how this judgement proves rights are pie:

twitter.com/RichardJGarside/status/1410917867990704129

Male prisons and mix sexed prisons.

They're higher than men.

The judge also acknowledged this in his judgment.

Why are transwomen more likely to be sex offenders than men?

I wonder of there's a clue in the "ignoring women's boundaries of single-sex spaces" issue.

So - the adult males who are less likely to commit sex attacks on women and girls are lawfully excluded from intimate female spaces, but adult males who are the most likely to commit sex attacks on women and girls are lawfully included.

We have been banging on about this fact on this board for years.

The police, judiciary, hone office, nhs, charities, ‘feminist’ organisations - ALL complicit fuckers.

But it's batshit that we ended up in this situation in the first place.

Yes, but women have been putting up with batshittery for centuries!

The judge also acknowledged this in his judgment.

Why are transwomen more likely to be sex offenders than men?

I wonder of there's a clue in the "ignoring women's boundaries of single-sex spaces" issue.

@merrymouse
But this is actually a step forward because it acknowledges that competing rights exist. This is not ‘TWAW’.
This is true.
But it's batshit that we ended up in this situation in the first place. Women said that putting natal males into the female estate as a bad idea, and lo and bloody behold...

Actually, we know that sex crimes are significantly higher for transwomen compared to biological women.

How do they compare to sex crime rates for men?

Although I can guess the answer tbh.