'Gender folly in women's jails' Sunday Times, Jeremy Coid Emeritus professor of forensic psychiatry Queen Mary University of London

[frazzled1]

Letters page: Prison staff are powerless to oppose policies that defy logic and common sense.

Thank you professor Coid . Wonder if you tried writing to The Observer?....

Interesting quote in there regarding ‘uncertain identity.’

I’d like to hear him expand on that.

Tssk, I thought we were over needing to hear from experts?

Seriously, though, thank you Prof Coid for the letter and thank you S Times for publishing

Yes. Would also like to hear more about the victimhood of the offendor. Chilling.

Good to see - I hope Professor Coid will be filling out the consultation.

Good for him. I'd like to hear more highly qualified people working with sex offenders speaking up about this.

Uncertain sexual identity is a key risk factor in a man with a history of sexual assaults.

I want to hear more, MUCH MORE, of what Prof Coid has to say on ALL aspects of the trans prison topic.

I looked him up. This is a man who knows what he is talking about - this is his field.

Great letter plus the comment about:

legal aid has funded a series of cases that assert rights to new identity and the victimhood of the offender over criminal responsibility for their acts. This provides a golden opportunity for further sexual offending.

Exactly what I have been saying and sanctioned for - a criminal should be made to serve their sentence and punishment, not be rewarded for their offending..

Thank you Prof. Coid.

(Note to Sunday Times/Times/Spectator/Telegraph/Private Eye journalists who I know read these threads - please, someone commission Prof Coid to write a longer piece for one of your papers.)

Thank you Professir Coid

Good for him.

Incredible that saying something this obvious is now an act of professional bravery.

Thank you Professor Coid

I have written to Women In Prison charity to ask their thoughts

Fascinating insight Professor Coid, and very well put. Women and girls urgently need to hear a great deal more from you since no one is listening to us, we're just the cannon fodder .

I think what he is getting at with the “uncertain sexual identity” is that when risk assessments are carried out on sex offenders, the presence of deviant interests or fetishes significantly increases the risk. This is based on a statistical analysis of those who sexually offend ie, if some one has committed a sexual offence has a fetish, then they are statistically more likely to reoffend than a man who does not have a fetish. A fetish for dressing in female clothing would therefore make an offender a higher risk.

Quoting from GirlScout's excellent post on another thread:

I quote "ii) Academic studies also suggest a higher than average prevalence of activities such as cross-dressing amongst sex offenders. There is not much research on the subject but one study that evaluated the incidence in the general population found that nearly 3% of males reported sexual arousal from cross-dressing. The incidence of transvestism in sexual offenders, however, has been found to be very much higher. In a study of over 500 sex offenders, it was observed that over half exhibited transsexualism and/or cross-dressing as their primary paraphilia. Paraphilias are atypical sexual interests in objects, situations, or individuals. Repeat offending is more likely among sex offenders who have paraphilias (see study here). Among serious sadistic offenders, transvestism and fetishism are strongly represented (studies here and here)"

Taken from: fairplayforwomen.com/3781-2/

Study quoted is reproduced in full here: fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/153.full_.pdf

Thanks Professor Coid! I hope you get a chance to expand on your thoughts.

I think what he is getting at with the “uncertain sexual identity” is that when risk assessments are carried out on sex offenders, the presence of deviant interests or fetishes significantly increases the risk.

Yes. And the presence of multiple paraphilias - eg David Challenor and his cross dressing, adult baby, furry combination.

Also from the study above:

Only 10.4 percent of these "average paraphiliacs" had one diagnosis, 19.9 percent had two diagnoses, 20.6 percent had three diagnoses, and 11.5 percent had four diagnoses. The remaining 37.6 percent were concomitantly or nonconcomitantly involved in five to ten different paraphilic behaviors.

I looked him up

Cor, I read that as "I locked him up" and thought "wow, harsh."

Excellent letter. I would also like to see it expanded into an article as Prof Coir sounds very switched on.

Brilliant, Prof Cold!

Add me to the list of people who hopes Professor Coid will be offered more opportunities to speak out.

I wonder if he was consulted at all over any issue like locking male rapists up with women?

I suspect the answer is no. So I suppose what I really want to know is WHY the people who are advising government on this are not the academics and people with experience, but the likes of Challenor.

Government have and are being advised by a biased pool of people with uncertain motives. Some of those people have been shown to have motives which are nefarious (Challenor) or allegedly nefarious (Bradley.)

No due diligence has been done. WHY?

If a bypass was being consulted on and the only people consulted were tarmac suppliers, road builders and catseye manufacturers people would be in uproar.

There needs to be a serious journalistic investigation in to who is driving this influence at the top in the UK.

(The excellent article here talks about the US and globally, www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3328210-Follow-the-money-who-is-funding-the-US-transborg. )

Now, let’s see who is pulling strings in the UK. Any of our journalistic lurkers fancy taking it on?

I saw someone raise 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' on a Twitter response to the Girl Guides decisions.

It sounded interesting:

"A standard of unreasonableness used in assessing an application for judicial review of a public authority's decision. A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223). The test is a different (and stricter) test than merely showing that the decision was unreasonable."

uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-200-9152?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

Thank god for Professor Coid! We need a full article please.

Yes men like that are a very particular risk. And how many go undetected for years before getting caught. It is chilling. Deeply disturbed and disturbing men.

I am so glad I got a subscription to the Times to reward them for reporting on this :)

Ooh yes R0 it does sound interesting.

Check this out from Coid in The Times in 2013. I found it when trying to search for his letter

The whole thing is very pertinent but the last paragraph is very interesting. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/psychopath-tests-futile-for-safety-say-scientists-c5m2hwnzbbz

If that doesnt work, I can try to figure out a share token