Shadow Justice Secretary, Steve Reed, says TW convicted of violence should not be sent to a women's prison

The blasphemy response.

NC asks a belter of a question once DD says Isla Bryson is a woman

'Why is a woman being sent to a man's prison?'

He pursues this a bit and also asks if violent women should also go into the male estate

And on Nicky Campbell's show yesterday he said there WAS a distinction between TW an women

'There are biological facts of life that you can't wish away...and transpeople don't try to wish that away, it's the very point - that they are transitioning'

Dave Doogan on the other hand...

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001hn7m

From 1:37:25

(NC is faux shocked by the assertion that TW are not 100% the same as women)

Yes but the current situation as it stood for many years, is no longer the current situation, as it were. That whole thing needs repealing, it's no longer needed.

Here's the same Steve Reed:

twitter.com/LBC/status/1613592229867552788

Has he realised that he can't ride two horses at the same time?

Case by case assessment is the current GRC route. Which apparently works. I presume it weeds out those with varying 'issues'. The self ID wait till they rape then do case by case as to which prison to send them to doesnt work for me!

One problem with the whole case-by-case basis risk assessment approach is that it shifts responsibility down the chain. It should be politicians or judges who are making and answering for these decisions. Instead they want to put that load onto prison managers, refuge staff and so on. And when it inevitably goes wrong it will be the fault of some overworked and under-resourced prison manager for not getting the risk assessment right. Not the fault of the politician for ducking the issue.

No. There should be no 'case by case' on any of this!!

We're not going to agree to have the same discussion over and over again! Women have a right to sex segregated spaces BY LAW and should not have to discuss it every time a man wants to muscle his way in.

'case by case'.....

Isn't the whole point of self ID that for all purposes any man who says he is a woman must be treated as a woman and therefore not on a case by case basis? Because a case by case basis is kind of what the law allows for now?

For instance, take the most vile, extreme female criminals this country has seen - rise west, myra Hindley. Their crimes were vile, against women, of a sexual nature - there was never any doubt, though, they would be housed in a female prison. And whatever their behaviour before or after incarceration, there was never any question they would be moved to a, make prison - presumably, even if they had at any time identified as men.

“case by case”

Well, we all know how that will go down with all those organisations which have been indoctrinated by Stonewall, (and there are many).

Many men in prison get raped by other men. Not all those who rape men in prison are in there for the crime of rape. That's why male bodied people need to be kept out of women's prisons. To protect them from male crimes.

Did you hear Steve Reed say, angrily, how few rapes and crimes of a preditory nature get to court, let alone end in a conviction?

How many men are wondering around, in and out of women's changing rooms and loos and refuges, who have never been caught, never been charged? Here he says that once in prison these men need to be kept separate from women for WOMEN'S safety, but how many are there in places where there are no guards, or cells, or supervision?

And yes, the only weapon we really had was being able to challenge men in places where they should not be, but it was a pretty powerful weapon. Its effectiveness was partly in everyone knowing it was there to be used if needed, a deterrent, and it made us feel safer to know we could use it if we needed to.

It's been taken away. The result is that more of these men will feel bolder to go where women are vulnerable and we will stay away from gyms, nightclubs, theatres, community centres, refuges, hospitals..... We need it back.

As for trans women? I don't know. But I always think there is a possibility of improving their lives without compromising the safety and freedoms of women, we just need to be able to TALK about it without being accused of bigotry, transphobia, fearmongering, weaponising our trauma or ignorance.

Alltheprettyseahorses · Today 17:09

Reed must explain his extraordinary and extremist view that a small subset of male convicts should be given the special privilege of choosing which prison they serve their time in.

Yes, nobody else gets to choose their place of incarceration, so why do they get extra rights? Surely it's discriminatory?

The prison service needs to be able to keep men safe as well as women but in their respective single sex spaces.

I’m sure they have a risk based assessment they could use that would help with this.

And as we know, 'case by case' means up for debate.

Which means argument, and kicking off and legal threats and a govt paid political pressure group pressuring and shouting and misleading.

And in practice it means Scott, Eastwood and Bryson et al in women's spaces.

If it's one, it's all. This is the whole issue in a nutshell. It therefore cannot be any. End of. Another answer has to be found for these men in third spaces.

Even this poor sweet unicorn accountant.

He's obviously unaware of Scotland's transwoman paedophile Katie didn't he stay at a women's hostel in Leeds

Did I also hear right that with regard to refuges he said the women at the refuge should decide (on a case by case basis) if they think a man who says he is a women is a threat?

Because that certainly is not happening.

He also included violent men who say they are women. So basically transwomen are allowed in women's prisons if they are not. 'threat', but surely if you were doing a risk assessment you would come to the conclusion that a man in apridon will always be a threat. A man's punch is nearly 3 times more powerful than a woman's.
We have to get back to no males whatever they say they are in female spaces.

Well nailed down.

this

Reed must explain his extraordinary and extremist view that a small subset of male convicts should be given the special privilege of choosing which prison they serve their time in.

Its as if they have no understanding of the sorts of people who break laws

These trans women rapists who are in prisons? Will they be getting life sentences?

Because if not they will be released at some point and what about being able to access women's loos etc then?

What about before they were caught? What about before they committed their crimes? What about the ones who were never caught, or charged, or convicted?

And that's just trans women, what about men who just say they are trans?

Because if they don't belong in a women's jail where they can be monitored and risk assessed and perhaps properly managed, they sure as hell don't belong in the marks and Spencer women's changing rooms.

So how can we tell, how do we know which ones are this breed of biological male that don't belong in women's prisons, how can we judge when we have just got out of the swimming pool or are coming round from a major operation?

"Fraud doesn't involve sexual violence or sexual assualt"

So let's consider "fraud" and how prevalent it is in plausible manipulative people who are not well grounded in social ethics and who are very good at taking advantage of vulnerable people... and then put them in prison with shedloads of psychologically vulnerable women while (honestly of course) presenting as women themselves. How's that going to play out?

And then I wonder how many violent male offenders are violent to women as well, even if they were only convicted of violence against other men. Violence is violence and how many people are convicted for a serious violent offence who are otherwise harmless and peaceable?

Case by case basis. Yeah, right.

Women's prisons are for women Steve,WOMEN.

Not men wearing lipstick and leggings,regardless of their crimes.

I think I see some bets being hedged.