Ian Huntley ! This is wrong...

[HJWT]

I just don't have words

It doesn't mean you judge a whole group by its worst examples, and if you dropped this reactionary fantasy of foolproof "safeguarding" you might understand that.

Safeguarding is a complex framework intended to recognise, manage and minimise risk to those most vulnerable.
It is supported by policies and legislation.

Nobody who works within safeguarding thinks it is 'foolproof'.
Those who impose limits to what can be identified are damaging the framework and this has serious consequences for those most vulnerable.

There are many issues currently which add to the failings /failures of the Child protection and Safeguarding frameworks, some collated here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

if you dropped this reactionary fantasy of foolproof "safeguarding" you might understand that.

Safeguarding and risk assessment isn't about 'foolproof' which isn't possible. It is, as well as making sensible predictions about possible risk and avoiding them, also about taking every actual incident and reported near miss and closing the loophole that allowed it so that particular incident can't happen again. Insurance works much the same way.

Not sure why women wanting standard basic safeguarding practice is 'reactionary' (unless you believe women shouldn't actually be allowed to avoid being used by men and the ones that argue back about this are feminazis, you wouldn't be alone in that) and the idea that the answer to inevitable safeguarding risk is just not to bother safeguarding is an interesting one. Since it would leave you open to massive legal risks, it's not one most people would try in any public body, public service or business.

Thanks Datun.

Who knew that a commitment to the most robust possible safeguarding of vulnerable women and children is a “reactionary fantasy”?

That’s a very... odd position to take.

That's not what NonExistentFox actually said though?
Which I read as everyone is so concerned about transwomen in women's spaces, because, penises.
Nobody has said any different on here that self ID is bad.
Focussing on any peceived bad un's still all intact and dismissing any not a threat in any way, shape or form and bits all gone too - what harm are they doing? Should be allowed to go about their business.

September 2018
If MPs can’t debate a rapist in a woman’s jail, politics has failed
James Kirkup
(extract)
"Last week, it was confirmed that the State put a rapist and paedophile in a women’s prison. That rapist, who uses the name Karen White, then sexually assaulted four women in that prison.

This is, of course, an outrage, a failure of public administration of the first order. Many people are angry, among them members of the Government that oversaw this failure. Many people have questions about how that failure came about. How did the Prison Service come to decide that Karen White, a person with a male body and a history of violent sexual crimes, should be put in New Hall prison? (New Hall, incidentally, also has a ‘mother and baby unit.’ The State did not just put a rapist in a women’s jail, they put a convicted paedophile in prison with children).

Was this just a catastrophic failure of judgement? Was it the result of flawed policy on the handling of transgender inmates? Did a climate of unthinking acquiescence to the demands of a highly effective transgender rights lobby contribute to this horrible mistake?

These are all legitimate questions, questions that should be debated and answered by the ministers responsible. These are the questions that Parliament exists to debate: questions about the conduct of public policy.

As I and others have noted repeatedly, a lot of politicians privately ask such questions about transgender issues, but many keep quiet about it – for fear of being labelled ‘transphobic’ or worse. I know serving ministers who have real doubts about some of these things, but dare not speak publicly.

Fortunately, a few MPs are willing to speak out. The obvious seriousness of the Karen White case persuaded more than one MP that the Commons should call a minister to explain and account for the incident.

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, thus tabled an Urgent Question, a parliamentary request for the House to summon a minister to discuss the issues raised by the Karen White case, and of other transgender sex offenders in the prison estate. (Yes, there are others. There is at least one male-born rapist in a women’s prison today.) (continues)

He didn’t. Mr Davies says the Speaker rejected his request. There are whispers that at least one other MP was also rebuffed.

To recap: the State put a rapist in a jail full of vulnerable women. That rapist then sexually assaulted four of those women. MPs wanted to know how that happened, and to question the ministers responsible for those events. The Speaker of the House of Commons said they could not do so.

The story of transgender policy in Britain today is a story of political failure, where many people fail to do their job and speak openly about matters of clear public interest. Writing about it this year, I’ve grown accustomed to that failure, though no less angry about it.

But even by the dismal standards of the trans debate, where supposedly responsible figures routinely shirk their duties to appease a small, aggressive group of activists and lobbyists, John Bercow’s decision strikes me as repulsive, a disgusting abdication of responsibility that brings shame on its author and his office.

Why did John Bercow refuse to let MPs debate the state-sponsored abuse of women? I have no idea and his office told me they never give a reason for the rejection of a UQ. He is, of course, meant to be a wholly neutral figure who discharges his duties as Speaker even-handedly and without bias to any cause or campaign. I have no reason to think he did otherwise on this occasion. However, it is at least worth noting that John Bercow is also the President of the Kaleidoscope Trust, an advocacy organisation that describes its mission thus: ‘We urge the British government and Commonwealth stakeholders to use their influence in support of the rights of LGBT people.’ (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-state-has-failed-karen-whites-victims/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3365319-new-kirkup-article-about-bercow-s-refusal-to-let-mps-discuss-karen-white

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3396169-John-Bercow-sex-pest-ridicules-GC-Women-friend-of-Pink-News-Edward-Lord-who-refused-UQ-about-prison-policy-following-Karen-White-Case-Unconnected

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3298016-John-Bercows-rant-about-Gender-Critical-women

'Reactionary : opposing political or social progress or reform.'

How the hell is wanting good safeguarding - which helps to free vulnerable people from harm - 'reactionary'? endangering women to prioritise what males want might be characterised as 'reactionary', I suppose...put women back in their second-sex box.

Inappropriate use of bad-sounding words is a cheap trick.

Some individuals don't "convince" me, whether it's about being trans, gay, bi, straight, feminist, happily married, not a criminal, whatever. It doesn't mean you judge a whole group by its worst examples,

Does this mean you think you can tell if somebody is a predator, or a safeguarding risk? Because you can't. And assuming you can is incredibly dangerous.

But it might account for your lack of faith in safeguarding.

Which I read as everyone is so concerned about transwomen in women's spaces, because, penises.

It is about males in intimate female spaces.

Female spaces are intended to provide safety, dignity and privacy.

Especially female spaces where females are especially vulnerable (eg locked-in)
Especially with males who are higher risk (eg convicted of crimes)

Male-pattern abuse, corecive-control, domestic violence, sexual assault, rape is that.
male-pattern

That it is so difficult to name is a serious issue.
Worth questioning how & why this has happened and to whose benefit and detriment.

Transwomen with no intact male bits, fully transitioned, presenting female too, placid, "normal" etc - what harm are they doing?

Some individuals don't "convince" me, whether it's about being trans, gay, bi, straight, feminist, happily married, not a criminal, whatever. It doesn't mean you judge a whole group by its worst examples

No, but we sex-segregate in spaces where women are vulnerable, not because all men are dangerous, but because some of them are.

Sorry, forgot to name datun as was the one mentioning safeguarding and was in reference to that post

Lisa Muggeridge (social worker) explains:

'Social work training: Ever present risk of predatory behaviour'

This is a fundamental understanding required for anyone working with child protection & safeguarding responsibilities.

SICK SICK BASTARD using the name of Holly Wells' mum!! He should be refused on those grounds alone the absolute CUNT!!!

Verbeena You simply are not logically conclusive. You say penises can‘t be female AND transwomen with penises should be allowed in sex segregated spaces (all else would be extremist) AND you are for sex segregated spaces.

Sorry, but this is not logically conclusive. You simply can‘t honestly be for all that all at the same time,

Transwomen with no intact male bits, fully transitioned, presenting female too, placid, "normal" etc - what harm are they doing?

How rare we supposed to know whether or not they've got their 'intact male bits', Verbeena? Before they show them to us or rape us with them?

Does this mean you think you can tell if somebody is a predator, or a safeguarding risk? Because you can't. And assuming you can is incredibly dangerous.

Maybe that poster can see into people's souls, like Layla Moran MP.

Fine, as I said, you do you. Don't accept any of them then.
Agree, *scaredandindebt, sick bastard on so many levels, evil piece of shite that it is.

OldCrone, haven't said I can see into people's souls, not sure who Leila Moran is either.

When did I say any transwomen with penises should be allowed in? Don't think I said that anywhere?
I said self ID is problematic, as you say, how do we know?
This is what I meant about twisty. I didn't say allow all penises in at all.
Some are saying "no transwomen at all, even the fully transitioned harmless ones, they can get out too."
I'm not.

Transwomen with no intact male bits, fully transitioned, presenting female too, placid, "normal" etc - what harm are they doing?

Its worth being aware of the male convicted of murder and attempted rape whose case set the precedant for moving transwomen into the female estate. THis was prior to obtaining a GRC and having genital surgery.

The arguments were that she presented as 'female' etc and that preventing her from continuing her 'transition' were in conflict with her human rights etc.

Successful appeal of pre-operative transgender woman without GRC transfer to Women's Estate, this overturned the Home Office's previous refusal. (2009)

No apparent dicussion or assessment of impact on female prisoners (whether they present as feminine, normal or harmless is irrelevent to the fact they are female and are women) except the following evidence from an expert in gender dysphoria, Dr James Barrett of the Gender Identity Clinic, Charing Cross Hospital, who had also known the Claimant for many years, explained why living in role in female accommodation was required:

"it will become clear that she is so widely accepted as female in that unit that location in the main prison will follow. I think that such acceptance will pretty generally apply in the main prison, also, although there will probably always be a small number of prisoners who will choose to make an issue of the matter because they are the sort of women who enjoy conflict. If this patient is able to cope with protracted close proximity women of that sort I would judge her able to cope with the less prolonged, more avoidable, travails of the civilian world."

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2220.html

Crime & Justice charity:

"Transgender prisoners – those, mostly men, who assert a gender identity at odds with their birth sex – pose a challenge for prison managers. Prisons, after all, are social institutions grounded in the gender binary: that one is either male or female. Transgender prisoners challenge such a binary.

The current Prison Rules state that male and female prisoners should be kept separate from each other. This is not a British idiosyncrasy.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners state that 'Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women, the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate'.

It does not need spelling out why keeping male and female prisoners in separate accommodation should be one of the minimum expectations for the treatment of prisoners."

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/transgender-prisoners

2015 Dr. James Barrett, President of the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists evidence to Maria Miller MP & the Women & Equalities Transgender Equality Inquiry:
"...the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system"

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.pdf

Nobody knows who the "harmless" ones are, though. If we knew who all the "harmless" men were, the world would be a very different place for women.

Some are saying "no transwomen at all, even the fully transitioned harmless ones, they can get out too."

We are discussing people (in this case male people) convicted of serious crimes and them being housed (locked into) in the female prison estate with vulnerable women.

Harmless?

Layla Moran, LIb Dem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.

I believe that women are women, so if that person was a trans woman, I absolutely would. I just do not see the issue. As for whether they have a beard, which was one of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments, I dare say that some women have beards. There are all sorts of reasons why our bodies react differently to hormones. There are many forms of the human body. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.

Debate on Self-identification of Gender in HoC