Staffordshire Police force defies trans ruling to put biological men in women’s cells

Yes, it is not really whether placing a man in a supposedly female cell ( if such a thing exists) is a big issue or not; what really is an issue is the attitude towards the ruling that this police force is taking. An attitude which is not only in defiance of the law, but also an attitude that offers little confidence that they can be trusted to abide by the ruling in those situations in which single sex applications/accommodations really do matter.

This all seems very bizarre.

As pps have said: these are enclosed single units, many stations don't have the luxury of multiple sections of these.

My question would be in these circumstances, why did Staffordshire decide it was necessary in the first place to invoke the legal discrimination to create 'women only cells' if this is in fact what they are - because those reasons suggest that they had needs and challenges that could only be met for women if these were provided. That's why you label something as 'women's'.

So if they've invoked that legal terminology because of a specific need/reason to separate the sexes, ok, but women then does have to mean women. Obviously. Because otherwise the provision is rendered pointless and loses its legal protection to exist. I wonder what those needs and reasons are.

Are they in fact meaning vulnerable people cells, where they're trying to provide an escape from shouting/scary/drunk/violent prisoners which would terrify the hell out of many? Vulnerable people obvs including both sexes?

Wtf is this all about? Huge amount of info missing.

I wish we had someone on the thread who knows but I strongly suspect that it will be because "women's cells" are normally policed only by women. In which case they would actually be "cells for any people who may have an issue with male police officers" , which makes a lot of sense. Whatever, it's a seriously clunky statement by Staffs Police.

That would make the most sense so far.

If this is the case, it may put women police officers at more risk. Barbie Kardashian is a useful case in point. As is Tiffany Scott in Scotland, both of whom assaulted female prison officers.

'Police searches, such as those which expose intimate body parts, should be carried out by police officers and staff of the same biological sex as the detained person,” the search policy advised, adding that trans people could request to be “searched by someone of their lived gender” as long as the detainee and officers agreed.'

So this would again put female police officers at risk. Males shouldnt really be offered the choice of being searched by women if they prefer, imo.

I don't think that argument will wash, when women (rightly) insist on being treated as equals in the Police Service and are routinely in the front line controlling violent crowds and attending calls to violent incidents. Dealing with violence is a routine part of police work for women.

Why would it put women police officers at any more risk than when dealing with fully dressed violent male offenders? It's literally what they are trained to deal with and they wouldn't thank you for depicting them as delicate little flowers who become disempowered at the sight of a penis.

Oh I dont know, could it be that policy and risk assessment may be different depending on sex of suspects/prisoners?

Who the fuck said anything about delicate flowers?

Custody suites have always been mixed to my knowledge. If you get arrested and chucked in a cell then you might have a man or woman in the cell next door.

Then, once again, why does Staffordshire Police say that "its custody policy means “detainees may be placed in accommodation consistent with their gender identity”?

I don't know. But realistically the average police station hasn't got the scope to have a male section and female section. I've never heard of it unless things have changed considerably. But then they're shutting police stations down not spending money altering them.

Will they be registered as women too? As in their crimes?

Just curious how far this goes

There is a little hatch which when closed doesn't allow anyone to look in, or it can be "open" but its a perspex window or open so you can put food and drinks through.

Four walls, no windows

That's the big question for me. Most units aren't big enough to have separate areas. Those that are have completely closed single use cells. What the actual id this statement supposed to be about!?

It almost seems as if it was deliberately to rile the gender critical but I suspect it was just incompetence by a woke junior PR person.