So what constitutes an "exceptional circumstance" then?

Yes, there are thousands of women convicted each year for non payment of the court ordered fine for not having a TV Licence.

That means that there are thousands of women in prison for not paying a £1,500 ordered by their local magistrates court (possibly in their absence).

That is what most people call 'going to prison for not having a TV Licence' because the vast majority of those women cannot possibly pay the fine and therefore are put in prison.

That is what human rights organisations and women in prison charity are fighting. You've just made a play on words that makes it sound as if that's not the reason women are sent to prison.

Also women are sent to prison for minor and petty shoplifting, often vulnerable women who instead of saying 'no comment' and calling a solicitor say 'oh yes, I must have left the shop without paying for the loaf of bread' = solid conviction for the CPS.

The average professional shoplifter isn't falling down that hole. Ditto the average wise person who didn't have a TV licence and got fined isn't going to fall down the hole of going to prison. Ergo it is the most vulnerable and poverty stricken often much older women who end up in prison for tiny offences.

Women are disproportionately convicted for non violent offences and given far higher sentences than men in general.

I read the other day on another thread here that one third of women prisoners are in for non-payment of the fines subsequent to not having a TV licence.

That's not correct. It mixes up convictions for non-payment of fines and those convictions that lead to a woman being in prison. It's a zombie "fact" that won't die.

https://fullfact.org/news/liz-truss-tv-licence-prison/

the latest available figures for England and Wales show no one was jailed in 2020 or 2021, and no more than two people were in 2019.

Because if a man commits a violent crime and has managed to go 10 years without getting caught, that makes him less of a risk?!

If anything it’s worse, because he’s likely smarter and more cunning.

In Scotland however the women's prisons will shortly start filling up with women who defiantly and unreasonably refuse to say whatever a man commands, who will not deny reality or accept exclusion and subordination quietly, or wants to be homosexual without hiding it and pretending vigorously that she absolutely would do that male person expressing a woman identity, yes, definitely, would love to, but has this cake to ice.

I read the other day on another thread here that one third of women prisoners are in for non-payment of the fines subsequent to not having a TV licence. If the bloody TV licence were to be done away with, about 1,300 women of the approximately 4,000 women in jail wouldn't have to be there. They'd be free. That 'crime ' would disappear. Obviously there'd then be one third fewer women available for men who pretend to be women to terrify and traumatise in women's prisons.

A step in the right direction. Unlike the steps Scotland is taking.

It has been discussed for a while that there are no designated category A prisons for women as there are for men, because there are never more than about a dozen women at most in that category in the entire system.

However if the batshit was permitted to roll on its happy way, there would be a need to open a category A women's wing at the very least.

Except it would be a category A women's wing with no women in it. Because the massive majority of category A women prisoners building up the numbers to require the resource would in fact be be male, and as demonstrated with women with male gender identities, even the prison service realise that when males heavily out number women, not even their risk assessments still work.

Yes, maybe.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were more trans women prisoners that actual women prisoners. Although I say this with no idea of the actual numbers.

When he throws a tantrum that he doesn't have access to women and accuses everyone around him of transphobia/bigotry/trans genocide so they get scared and just let him do what he wants.

The mealy-mouthed wording makes the guidelines pointless.

No men in women's prisons, ever. Dick or no dick, bollocks or no bollocks. Murder or Tax Evasion. Never, ever ever.

Why the fuck is it so difficult to get this across? (Answers on a postcard to SPS and SG).

Rhona Hotchkiss mentioned this and said it wouldn't work as numbers are so small, it would mean some prisoners would have to be sent a long way from home, which isn't fair.

Isn't this already the case for women? The small number of women's prisons means that women are often sent much further from home than men are.

But don't most prisons have some accommodation for vulnerable prisoners? Why can't the trans prisoners be put in there if they are vulnerable in the main part of the prison?

All good points.

I was until quite recently, all for additional resources, in the belief that it is reasonable to offer the choice between a specialist unit at a distance or a local prison of the same sex and the prisoner have their preference met: it is more than other prisoners will get.

However a specialist wing was created in a female prison for male prisoners who wished to be in the female estate, but who were at the time, even under the highly vague and shrug based risk assessment system, regarded as too high a threat for women to be free in that estate. They could be in a women's prison, they could have that dignity and validation, just limited to a wing.

The males involved and their lawyers kicked off about segregation, got into the female provision anyway regardless of risk assessment and the wing was never used for that purpose.

It demonstrates that the goal is not support for identity and gender, the goal is women.

So yes. There are many, many vulnerable male prisoners of all needs, not just gender needs. The male estates need developing to meet the diverse needs of all men better. But there is no human right for a man to be provided with women's bodies as a resource. And let's face it, no other part of those women is of any interest to anyone. How they think, feel, identify...? No. Their inner lives and minds have no relevancy. This is quite simply their body as a resource without right to consent.

And that's abhorrent.

Rhona Hotchkiss mentioned this and said it wouldn't work as numbers are so small, it would mean some prisoners would have to be sent a long way from home, which isn't fair.
Also, how would it work for the guards? Would it be male or female guards that do searches?

It comes back to basics every time; why are prisons split by sex? If the reasons are still valid, there shouldn't be any exceptions; if the reasons are no longer valid, all prisons should be mixed sex. (Obviously it's the first!)

I think this nails it. This is what the activist lobby basically means in all senses, and we actually have governments showing that yes, they're a bit shy about admitting it but they really do believe it.

No harm to women or children is ever serious enough to justify restricting the self expression and desires of men.

Mutilation, sterilisation, ending the positive right of homosexuality, rape....?

Yes, but taking action to protect people from that would make men sad .

It is not as if the needs of diverse and vulnerable men cannot be met without throwing women to the wolves; it is perfectly possible. This is about the perceived right of men to use women, whether or not the women consent, whether or not this is in the women's best interests, and whether or not the women are seriously harmed by the use. This is merely wibbling a bit about the degree of harm.

Surely the correct answer is a specialist Transgender wing, which is both single sex (male) and single gender (they see themselves as female). They see themselves as women, their fellow prisoners see themselves as women. So they are in a "womans wing".

Why do you believe that any man should be in a women's prison?

Men without penises are still men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Baker

100% a 'genuine' transwoman.

No penis.

Violent crimes committed as far as I'm aware have been limited to violence against males. No sexual crimes that I'm aware of.

Who thinks that women should be locked up with this man?

No.

The wellbeing of the women in the prison is equally as important as that of any man. Even a man who is unwell enough to have castrated himself while in prison. Say for attempted murder.

Another reminder that Sarah Jane Baker, kidnapper, torturer and attempted murderer, has allegedly castrated himself. His presence in a women's prison would be terrifying.

I was thinking that the crime was more than a decade ago and they've only just been caught.

If their crime was more than a decade ago and they're still in prison, that must have been a pretty serious crime. Access to incarcerated women shouldn't be given as a reward for good behaviour for a rapist. Even a castrated one.

Women's safety should be given priority over men's desires.

Nope

Well maybe if they've completely transitioned, including penis removal, they crime was committed more than a decade ago and they 'pass' as a women ?

I do believe even the most serious offenders should be protected from violence where possible

Completely agree. Protecting vulnerable prisoners (the very worst, most depraved and violent prisoners can of course also be vulnerable) does not require putting them in a women's prison.

'Trans women who have hurt or threatened women or girls will not be held in female prisons unless there are "exceptional" circumstances'

Translation:

In 'exceptional circumstances', transwomen men who have hurt or threatened women or girls will be held in female prisons.

Can you imagine the meetings at which this was discussed?

Someone suggests that rapists or abusers should not be put into prison with women.

Someone else has said: 'But what if ...'

What is the what if, and who is saying it, and how the fuck do they sleep at night?

This. It means someone somewhere can do whatever they like.

Not how laws are supposed to work. 😔