Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Times - Trans person seeks to rewrite their criminal history on basis of 'privacy'

100 replies

Wanderabout · 09/09/2018 08:52

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-offender-seeks-to-wipe-crimes-as-aman-from-record-qfk5w68lb?shareToken=9224a3234cfb01ef11ba3d794f7c7942

Represented by Claire McCann.

If successful this could also apply to sexual offences such as rapes.

Implications of this plus self-ID for women's safety are hugely disturbing.

OP posts:
NothingOnTellyAgain · 09/09/2018 14:12

This is a symapthetic case for sure.
Back in those days the police were awful to gay men esp in Soho and went after them etc, based in discrimination etc.

I talked about this with DH.
He said they could change the name to "soliciting" or similar (there are a few crimes related I think) which do not denote the sex.
I said no they can't do that, they can't change the name of a crime that a person was convicted of, that just goes against everything really.
He was unconvinced but I am right Grin

I do feel for this person as it's such a long time ago. Wouldn't it be spent? What about the sensitive disclosure thing? This person must be in a serious max DBS role for this to be an issue.

For everyone posting - it wouldn't be possible to scrub all criminal record if this goes through - just ones that say your SEX and only if you are trans.
So things like sexual activity with a minor can be committed by men or women > so there would be no grounds to remove this.
The big issues here (and the only one? apart from these historical offences) is RAPE.

TerfsUp · 09/09/2018 14:52

Every day more and more evidence to show that the safety of women and children is far less important than the feelings of these me

Yep. Their feelz are more important than our safety. It's best that we remember our place.

BabySharkDoododoo · 09/09/2018 15:17

This is terrifying. Surely it will not be allowed? The implications of this...the likes of Huntley if he ever gets out would be able to cover up what he did...I do think this was one of the endgame goals of transactivism. I would like to think that noone sensible would allow this, but then I think of the shit thats already been allowed, and I am not so hopeful.

AngryAttackKittens · 09/09/2018 15:28

And I am increasingly convinced that it is not simply an unhappy coincidence that much of what the trans juggernaut wants is a gift to sexual predators and creepy men.

Yep. And more people realize it every day, no matter how many comments about it get deleted.

Has anyone posted this in AIBU yet? It needs lots and lots of coverage.

Mc180768 · 09/09/2018 16:23

I work with women in prison. I also work with them leaving prison.

With the DBS check (bizarrely called a certificate that's exempt on the day it's printed) any offence that has a sentence of 30 months and over has to be disclosed as they're never spent.

Where 'regulated activity' as part of a role is undertaken, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply. Therefore, historic offences even so much as nicking a bike from the school bike shed, if the Chief Superintendent of the force where the offence occurred, feels it's relevant to the application of the vacancy.

A JR for this will likely not be granted due to the 'Right to be Forgotten' which is in place.

DBS has a helpline for those whom self ID. If, and this is about the safeguarding & protection of vulnerable people and children, and it's a mighty if, this was successful, (and I doubt it will be) I hope there will be swift action.

With the 'Karen White' case, (something the MoJ has not released a statement on and they should) this opens up the trans debate for sure. It needs to happen. Wome in prison are a cohort of women that face particular criminal and social justice barriers, also 80% of women in prison have or are victims of sexual and domestic abuse.

The women's prison estate is still in the Victoria era. The debate on how a) a male was granted to serve his sentence in a women's prison and b) the DBS debate for the protection of society's most vulnerable is now open and I hope it will be one where a thorough consultation will occur.

If this is allowed JR, it will undo all the work that went into DBS following the Soham murders. That's why the enhanced disclosures were legislated.

I'm fucking livid.

Mc180768 · 09/09/2018 16:49

Below is an article, while US based explains the growth & funding of the TRAs.

The Times - Trans person seeks to rewrite their criminal history on basis of 'privacy'
IfNotNowThenWhen1 · 09/09/2018 16:54

I don't agree with birthh sex. It's just sex surely.
Yes, you are right.
At least you are born a sex though. Nobody is born a gender!

PeakPants · 09/09/2018 17:00

Surely the solution should be that offences such as 'importuning as a man' that no longer exist (I think) are just replaced with new names? I also think it's unfair that an offence committed in the 1970s essentially for soliciting (which I don't think should be criminalised anyway- I would rather the punters get punished) should still come up on a check.

But the case absolutely cannot win. No fucking way. If there is a right to wipe your record of being a rapist, then god help us all.

AngryAttackKittens · 09/09/2018 17:04

As ever, consider who's behind the curtain. Which group has most to gain from being able to wipe their previous offenses from their record, so they won't come up on a DBS check?

Ereshkigal · 09/09/2018 17:04

I agree Peak in terms of the offence. But I don't believe anyone should get to pretend history didn't happen.

Angryresister · 09/09/2018 17:07

Why on earth should trans people get a free pass on this?. Of course they are unlikely to phone the confidential line...it will be probably be staffed by sympathisers.

IrmaFayLear · 09/09/2018 17:16

If someone truly wants to reenter society, why are they keen to get a job requiring a DBS? Surely any right-minded person would avoid such jobs (it's not as if working with children/vulnerable people is the only work available)?

There is clearly an Agenda here, and it's nothing to do with the odd case of some perfectly decent person being discriminated against.

Where is the money and campaign for those desperately trying to shout, "Emperor's New Clothes!" ? How come the self id mob have all the funds and representation?

PeakPants · 09/09/2018 17:21

That is true Ereshki although I do think if the offence no longer exists or its name has changed, that should be changed on the certificate. I would probably have no clue what 'importuning as a man' meant if I were an employer. It would be helpful all round if it were changed to soliciting.

I can't think of any current sex-specific offences other than rape actually. Importuning no longer exists. So if this case succeeds, it will give a free pass to rapists. Rape- the crime that is one of the most relevant ones for a DBS check. It would not surprise me if it succeeds. Nothing does anymore.

Ereshkigal · 09/09/2018 17:26

This case is not about "importuning as a man". Which on general grounds I'm inclined to agree with you on. But not ever ever on the grounds of trans identity and right to privacy. Why should a gay man who did this not get it removed from record while an MTF can?

TheMostBeautifulDogInTheWorld · 09/09/2018 17:27

Why on earth doesn't "Helen" apply for the conviction to be removed under the "Turing" principle, instead?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37711518

Anlaf · 09/09/2018 17:29

Why on earth doesn't "Helen" apply for the conviction to be removed under the "Turing" principle, instead?

That is an excellent question.

AngryAttackKittens · 09/09/2018 17:32

Because a. Trojan horse and b. that wouldn't validate Helen's belief that Helen is a woman.

NothingOnTellyAgain · 09/09/2018 17:33

Agree that it would be better to either:

change the name of the crime >> just "importuning" would do it

Quick google:

"The Criminal law has almost nothing to say about the regulation of consensual sexual activity between adult lesbians. Gay men, on the other hand, have been the specific target for criminal law for at least a century. The 'classic' charges brought against gay men engaging in consensual sexual offences are buggery, gross indecency and importuning ('persistently solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes'). The targets of most of the prosecutions under these laws were men caught allegedly abusing the facilities of public lavatories (cottages) or engaging in sexual activity at night in deserted parks or wasteland (cruising grounds)."

I think "importuning" basically means " chatting up persistently" ie something that men do to women all the time and is entirely legal.

As such I think that all 1960s/1970s convictions for "importuning as a man" need to be struck off as per Turing idea.

I do NOT think that one type of man should be allowed to have it removed and not others.

NothingOnTellyAgain · 09/09/2018 17:35

Guardian:

"It also said that the law that had been used to prosecute thousands of men for cottaging or cruising should be scrapped. The most commonly used offences against men who seek sexual partners in or around toilets are importuning and gross indecency. The report said that similar behaviour, if between men and women, would be seen as no more than "chatting up" and such approaches to women were not criminal. Instead it proposed if cottaging happened on such a scale to cause distress to local residents, it should be dealt with under laws for street prostitution."

Yep pardon them all IMO.

times 2000

NothingOnTellyAgain · 09/09/2018 17:37

Independent on alan turing law not working v well 2016 here

Importuning part:

"Richard*, one of my clients who has a caution for soliciting, is extremely disappointed that he is unable to apply to have his caution disregarded under the scheme. He feels strongly that he is owed an apology for the discriminatory way he was treated by the police, and the effect that the caution has had on his life. In 1995 he was approached by a man in Soho at the end of a night out. Before he had even spoken to the man, he was arrested by a plain clothes police officer, taken to a police station and told that he had been arrested for “soliciting or importuning for an immoral purpose” under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

Richard was told by the police that he could accept a caution for the offence in order to avoid any potential embarrassment. He was so upset and humiliated by the situation that he signed the caution in order to be able to leave the police station.

It wasn’t until 2008 that he first became aware that the repercussions of his arrest had the potential to last a lifetime. By this time Richard had spent nine years working in education, specifically teaching children with special educational needs. A CRB check requested by his then employer disclosed for the first time that he had a caution for a sex offence. Reliving the humiliation of his arrest, he explained what had happened to his employer, who was understanding, and he hoped that he would not have to deal with it again.

In 2015 he left his job, looking for a new challenge. He began applying for positions in schools, but his caution was disclosed to every prospective employer. He spent a year being rejected from job after job, and said, “My career fell apart. As I went from interview to interview it became more and more hopeless, and I thought I would never find a job again.”

Richard’s situation was compounded by the fact that as well as having a caution for an offence that is not included in the disregard scheme, his offence is considered to be a sex offence. Cautions for most offences are now filtered from a CRB check after six years, but serious offences and sex offences will never be filtered.

Eventually, Richard was able to persuade the police that his caution had been given to him unlawfully, and they agreed to delete it on an exceptional basis, outside of the disregard scheme. Richard now has a clean CRB record, and a new job. But, he says, “I will always be asked about that year’s gap on my CV. The caution has been deleted but that will never go away.”

BettyDuMonde · 09/09/2018 17:38

Absolutely agree that this is strategic - along with T Hudson v the MOJ and the private prosecution against Bellos.

PeakPants · 09/09/2018 17:45

Nothing that story is of course very moving and I am entirely in favour of importuning offences being wiped as a matter of course. Anything that is no longer illegal should be irrelevant in the present day.

BUT this case is being fought on the basis that only trans people will have the right to have certain offences wiped. And the main one that will be relevant is rape. Someone convicted of cottaging is hardly a risk to women or the general public. Someone convicted of rape most definitely is. It should have nothing to do with being trans- the fact that new birth certificates are issued is ridiculous enough. Let's not rewrite even more history.

Ereshkigal · 09/09/2018 17:46

Who's representing Tara? Anyone know?

R0wantrees · 09/09/2018 17:48

Is Claire unaware of the sensitive application route for DBS checks? A barrister would know about this, surely? The laws are already in place to ensure that trans people are not 'outed'.

Claire McCann has worked closely with TRAs for some time.

See current threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3325882-WEP-conference-questions-for-panel-of-trans-rights-advocating-barristers

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3356182-who-s-going-to-the-wep-conference-this-weekend-fancy-a-thread

NothingOnTellyAgain · 09/09/2018 17:50

Yes I agree peak.

They should be campaigning for all gay men to get these things struck off

But they aren't

Because they aren't interested in the L G or B

And there are other motivations.

Not saying this man wants it done for nefarious reasons but agree with others this is strategic and will help a whole lot of much less wholesome people.

Swipe left for the next trending thread