The "daughter" who murdered her father who had MS

[AskBasil]

Is actually his son.

fancy sharing a cell with this bloke?

This is really serious, violent crime figures are going to be totally distorted as more and more men claim they are women and statisticians meekly record them as such.

"Sex offender violently murders disabled father"

Is Bleaching Brian a euphemism, Owl??!!

I think you could read this stuff without diazepam and feel like you were tripping to be honest!!

My brain :) it's not really working at the moment!

Beyondboots, that should have been the headline. It's awful.

Dont worry, i have plenty of those moments - my posts are often absolute bollocks

I've just found another report, about the trial:

http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/crime-court/barkingcarerrontriallforkillinggdadspentt24hourssadayywithhimm14430809

"her father bedbound and Ms Darybshire afraid to leave the house due to her agrophobia and the bullying she claims to have been a victim of at school and throughout her life, very often the only outside contact the pair received was a visit by the district nurse."

If Darbyshire never left the house, what exactly did she do day to day that is described as "living her life as a woman" since 2008?
Putting on a bra every morning? Pee'ing sitting down?

HeyNonny - that's interesting - that's the moment I'm not really listening because DS is home and we're doing stuff but I had the radio on all day long and I must have listened to the headlines between 8 and 4 at least 6 times and there was no mention whatsoever of Claire being trans.

What complete and utter nonsense. All of it.

Has anyone noticed the unreconcilable contradiction between these two sentences?

1. Ms Darybshire afraid to leave the house due to her agoraphobia.
2. After killing him she took a train to Dover. She was found the next day on the White Cliffs by a National Trust worker.

The White Cliffs, as in the coastline? Just where you would expect a person suffering from crippling agoraphobia to find solace

Managed to leave the house to wank in some pants though. Classic agoraphobic woman behaviour......

The news reports state Darbyshire was held in Belmarsh on remand. That's a men's prison, so whatever pronouns the media uses the prison service is treating this prisoner as a man. So the crime will be being recorded as committed by a man.

This whole thing is fucking horrible.

The comments on those articles that don't discuss his trans status are just as disturbing. The implication seems to be that obviously everybody with a serious disability wants to die/is better off dead.

That Times snippet says that one of the prosecution points was that the father's carers had never discussed taking his own life or complained about pain. That doesn't really tally with the no contact, sole carer line either. There is some pretty inconsistent reporting going on with this case.

Are the media following guidelines re reporting trans crime or is it entirely to their discretion?

Ipso have a clause in the Editor's Code about mentioning sex or gender identity unnecessarily.

They also have one about accuracy.

So I'd say he should be reported as trans woman or man, especially as he obviously doesn't have a GRC.

belsornia The judge has ordered reports to consider the impact on inprisonment in the particular circumstances - so it is by no means certain that Darbyshire will be jailed with men, or that the crime will be recorded as a man.
It would be an interesting FOI request - to find out how police forces record the sex/gender of suspects and offenders.
I vaguely remember (from a job years ago) that there was an'other' category - I'm not sure the trans-activists would be happy about that!

But judges don't decide where prisoners go. That sounds like a mental health assessment to me. The decision about the institution lies with NOMS. In my experience Probation officers are pretty skilled at assessing motivation and risk. Those I know have plenty of experience of trans individuals, much more so than in other fields. I don't disagree with any of the concerns here, but I wouldn't want people to think that the sort of blind right on attitudes we see in the media would steam roll a risk decision in custody.

I've read a few reports on this and the DM is the only one I've seen that includes the soiling knickers story. The fact they included it makes me wonder if they are less sympathetic to this person than they are appearing. Makes me wonder if they are under pressure to portray a certain view point. I don't know maybe not but seems an odd thing to include.

belsornia - it's already happened though. The Tara Hudson case last year? On remand in a male prison, sentenced and jailed in a female prison?

Hudson was initially put into a men's prison, then moved after a public campaign. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that there isn't an automatic placement by how people 'identify', the default is by sex. I think it's very concerning that public pressure created a move in the case of Hudson.

"Isnt automatic... default is sex" - i'm not 100%, but im quite sure that if you have a GRC, you go in the 'gender' prison you identify with automatically

I think this is so important and yet the only place I have heard the real debate is on MN and a few feminist blogs.

Not Radio 4, not the Guardian, not Woman's Hour, nowhere.

Who is stifling the debate?

I would like to know that too.

Who is stifling the debate?

Not "who" but what - and I believe the answer is fear.

Fear of becoming the next target of the trans-activists, who shout loudly, make threats, and rally public opinion.

The Tara Hudson case is evidence of that. The judge sat on the fence, and the professionals who are employed to apply policy re-interpreted that policy in response to public opinion, and in doing so, disenfrachised the less vocal majority.

Far better that the debate doesn't happen, than organisations such as the BBC having to take a stance and alienate one or other of the "sides" of the debate.

As I mentioned up thread, a lot of my friends just don't seem to see there's an issue.

One of them, discussing the Tara Hudson case, said emphatically, she should not be sent to a men's prison, she will be horrifically abused.

I questioned this and explained my POV and could sense that I was a lone voice among my friends. The desire to do the PC thing and accept people at their word seems so powerful. It's like all the wrongs perpetrated against gay people in the past are coloring people's judgement today towards trans people. No questioning allowed, no examination of motives, no reflection on the harm to other groups.

I think the TAs are going to have some dilemmas.
Pretty soon, if not now, there's going to be a case they won't feel comfortable getting behind. But surely they'll then undermine their whole ethos??

Say there's a masculine looking MTT who is convicted of raping women. They can hardly get much public support saying 'this poor woman should be in women's prison!' but they can also hardly say 'actually.....yeah, stick this one in with the other blokes.'
Does that make sense?

Either way, I do believe that this whole trans trend will implode in on itself spectacularly. I just hope they don't do too much more damage before that day.

Pretty soon, if not now, there's going to be a case they won't feel comfortable getting behind.

Thats the worrying thing though, isn't it? The TA's are also being misled by the media.
Darbyshire's history of sexual offending is not being reported; opinion is being formed based on this stand-alone case; as evidenced by pp on this thread, who had seen media coverage and formed an opinion accordingly, only to reconsider once they were aware of the full facts.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that those TA's who are "leading" the cause are not doing so in order to gain equality for trans-women but are beating that drum in order to garner popular support from the very minority whose hard-fought-for rights they are systematically undermining.