Lisa Nandy interview demonstrates she still doesn't understand Safeguarding yet & neither do the other Labour leadership candidates.

[R0wantrees]

Interview:
mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1230837769200689155

The violent child rapist referred to by Dr Julia Long is not in prison. Christopher Warton was found guilty of breaching the SHPO last year by a Worcestershire court & ordered to pay a £93 fine, a £30 victim surcharge and £135 in court costs.

So this male offender would be able to aquire a GRC under the proposals which Nandy, Starmer & Long-Bailey all support with such solidarity.

The women's spaces which this 'violent offender' would therefore legitimately have full access to would be female changing rooms, hospital wards, rape services etc

Article:
"A TRANSGENDER woman, previously convicted of raping a girl, has breached a sexual harm prevention order.

Zoe Lynes was sent to a youth detention centre in 2014, after pleading guilty to five counts of rape against a child aged between 13 and 15.

Yesterday [24th January 2019], the 22-year-old, whose name was also given in court as Christopher Worton, admitted breaching her sexual harm prevention order."
transcrimeuk.com/2019/02/08/christopher-worton-zoe-lynes/

Im amazed that no-one in Labour (or those interviewing) has thought to do the most basic background check to establish the details of the case or to listen to what Dr Julia Long actually asks:
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oUon9j1zJ_E&

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3824781-Lisa-Nandy-says-child-rapists-should-be-in-women-s-prisons-if-they-identify-as-female

Yesterday's Julie Bindel Guardian article for context:

'Why do men get away with killing women – is there an amnesty on male violence?'
Cuts to domestic violence services, refuges and legal aid have resulted in increased levels of risk for women targeted by men
(extract)
The latest UK Femicide Census shows that, despite more than 50 years of feminist campaigning against male violence, the number of women and girls dying at the hands of men is increasing. The annual report on such crime in the UK shows that of the 149 women killed in 2018, the vast majority – 91 – died at the hands of a current or former partner; 12 were killed by sons or stepsons; five by a current or former son-in-law. Only nine were killed by a stranger or where there was no known relationship. Three of the perpetrators had killed women previously. (continues)

As a feminist campaigner, I am often asked why women are still targeted by male rage. Our successes have been significant: were it not for feminist campaigning, rape in marriage in a number of countries would not be a crime and there would be no specific laws against domestic violence. But why, then, has this not led to fewer women dying?

In recent years domestic violence services and refuges have been closed down or replaced with generic, cut-price facilities run by those without any expertise on crucial issues such as risk factors and why women return to violent men. Significant cuts to legal aid are also a massive barrier for many women seeking injunctions against abusive ex-partners, as is the fact that there are many migrant women with no recourse to public funds who are often turned away from refuges. And since former justice secretary Chris Grayling’s disastrous reforms to the probation service, more male offenders with histories of serious violence towards women are being classed as “low” or “medium” risk and released from prison." (continues)

We must believe women when they say they fear for their lives. It is up to all of us – neighbours, friends, family members and teachers – to look out for signs of domestic abuse and report it. But we also have to recognise that women are not just in danger from partners and ex-partners. Stalking and harassment of women by colleagues and acquaintances can lead to disastrous consequences for the victims, and yet these cases are often badly handled by police and rarely successfully prosecuted. These women die because there is a virtual amnesty on male violence. The conviction rate for rapes is at an all-time low – just 1.4% of those reported.

The women who die as a result of male violence tell us an important story. These dead bodies symbolise the tyranny under which all women, to one degree or another, live. The men responsible for their deaths have committed extreme acts of patriarchal violence, and it is easy for other men to distance themselves from these crimes. But the fact is that so long as any form of male violence and abuse of women and girls is tolerated, the morgues will continue to bear witness to its inevitable and tragic consequence."
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/20/men-killing-women-cuts-refuges-legal-aid

That's a good interview, which highlights how little Lisa Nandy understands about the reality of this debate.

She thinks child rapists who self-identify as women should be in women's prisons, but 'not with other women', so somehow segregated from the women prisoners. How would that work? And if an intimate search needs to be performed, would the female prison officers be forced to do this? She says people don't understand. But she herself doesn't understand.

Once again she mentions the young person in her constituency, but this time says that this young person is still at school. A child. This child cannot possibly be going through the GRA process as Nandy says, much less have been doing so 'for years', since it is not open to children.

She also thinks the GRA was to 'help and support people going through the trans process'. She doesn't seem to realise its purpose was simply to allow people to be legally recognised as the opposite sex, following some sort of transition process, in order for the UK to comply with a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. The alternative route to comply with this ruling would have been to pass a law allowing same-sex marriage. Since we now have same-sex marriage, the GRA is redundant.

She seems to think that self-ID of legally recognised sex would reduce the delays at the gender identity clinics. I have no idea how she thinks this would work. And how does she think that a child being able to legally self-ID as the opposite sex would stop them being bullied at school? I can't see the connection, and she doesn't explain. Why is the GRA process stigmatising? Again, no explanation.

Her comments get more absurd every time she speaks.

She is seriously advocating for a policy in which mentally ill people are given more power over the treatment they receive than the psychiatrists who have assessed them!

The role of a psychiatrist would be to affirm the patient's delusion, it seems, and the patient could choose which drugs and treatment they want to have.

It would also mean all prison sentences based on psychiatric treatment would have to be overturned and anyone who is in custody because they're deemed to be a threat to others would be free to choose if they want to leave.

I can't believe she's as stupid as Angela Rayner and Dawn Butler so can only assume she's got a very dangerous lobby behind her.

I can't believe she's as stupid as Angela Rayner and Dawn Butler so can only assume she's got a very dangerous lobby behind her.

Pink News

(extract)
The Wigan MP said that attempts to “shout her down” when talking about trans rights means she’ll amp up her support instead.

Nandy, 40, said she was targeted by a barrage of “hate and anger” as she was repeatedly heckled during a PinkNews LGBT+ Labour hustings in Manchester on February 20, supported by Diva magazine.

A small but loud group of protestors demanded the candidates “define a woman” after Nandy and fellow leadership hopeful Rebecca Long-Bailey signed pledges published by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights.

The pledges commit them to expelling people with transphobic views from Labour.

One person in the audience accused the candidates of not knowing “what the definition of woman is” and said “women’s voices are being shut down” in the leadership hopefuls’ support for the trans and non-binary community.

The second time she was heckled, Nandy said: “I signed the pledge precisely for this reason, because we have got to be better than this as a level of debate in this party.

“I will not stop no matter who tries to shout me down.” (continues)
www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/02/21/lisa-nandy-trans-rights-heckled-labour-leadership-hustings-lgb-alliance/

She thinks child rapists who self-identify as women should be in women's prisons, but 'not with other women', so somehow segregated from the women prisoners.

By definition then, she is saying that such a prisoner - woman or transwoman - should be put into a men's prison.

Because the women's estate is not set up to deal with prisoners so dangerous that they cannot be held in the general population; there is already provision in law and prison policy that says that a woman prisoner that dangerous can (and probably should) be held in the men's estate, where they have the infrastructure and experience and so on to manage the prisoner properly.

So if Nandy believes TWAW then she ought to be saying that just like any super-dangerous woman prisoner, the TW should be in the men's estate.

She will likely have been advised that there is provision for extremely violent female prisoners to be housed in male estate.
The only women held in male estate on this basis are male.

However, male prisoners who identify as women who have been convicted of rape, sexual assault & child abuse are not automatically catagorised as such. (see Julie Bindel's article above)

Also of course a high number of males who have committed violent and/or sexual crimes against women & girls will not have been successfully prosecuted for these crimes. They may be in prison for other convictions (see Julie Bundel's article above)

I don't think she doesn't get it. I think she knows most of the public don't know the truth. So she's telling a pack of lies to avoid their finding out and losing those votes, while still keeping the Momentum lot on board.

She can lie in a way that massages the lobbyists martyrdom narrative so they won't call her on it, while condemning GC people on the basis of those lies. I mean, in fairness she's clever. If using the Trump and Johnson playbook on plausible lies is your idea of clever, of course.

They're all playing both sides against the middle. And they can all fuck off. None of them matter, anyway: Labour are a long, long way from political relevance and working hard to remain there.

Lisa Nandy makes much of having worked for Centrepoint Homeless Charity.
Her failure to understand quite basic Safeguarding principles & criminal justice issues should demonstrate how people employed as policy writers /comms etc lack fundamental awarenesses which inform the frontline work done by these large charities working with children & vulnerable adults.
The same (dangerous) disconnect has been demonstrated by NSPCC & also some Women's Sector services.

The thing they really haven't thought through: they know they're fairly safe in condemning women in prison to horrific risk alongside male offenders, because people tend to lack sympathy for prisoners, women or men, and to argue that they should have thought of that etc etc etc - they don't know the backgrounds of most women in jail is usually traumatic to the nth degree. But those offenders are released, and with self ID here in practice even before the law mandates any such thing, Karen White could use a communal Center Parcs changing room near you any time he* wants to. And if he wants to strip naked alongside naked women, it wouldn't be indecent exposure, or voyeurism. He'd be allowed right in. So would John Warboys, on release - there's no requirement (or, indeed, means) to prove someone is honest, and in good faith. So anyone male arriving at Reception and using the magic words, "I identify as a woman..." would be allowed in. Center Parcs have confirmed that to women from here, on the phone. And that's the point: MOST men are harmless, but almost ALL women are. As a class, males pose a huge risk that is quite easily avoided by excluding them. And any policy like that means that the genuinely decent men would stay away, and you'd be left with militant transwomen refusing to show concern for women's privacy, dignity or previous trauma (horribly selfish, but not worse) ...and sex offenders, exploiting a safeguarding gap.

Once the Daily Mail get hold of that little detail and others like it, and really go to town now the trans-rights-without-exceptions flag has been seized with such enthusiasm, then Labour will look ever more demented defending it. And I can't see the Tories drawing attention to the fact that the most recent batshittery actually happened on their watch - it'll be like the Northern towns voting Tory 'for a change' after ten years of Tory austerity. People will just know that this insanity is loudly supported by Labour, who plan to increase it. All Johnson needs to do is act astonished and appalled and he's won the argument.

The fact they can't see that, and genuinely think their woke little bubble represents the rest of us, is painful. Labour were meant to represent the working person, not a bunch of privileged kids from good universities wanting to navel-gaze and define one another as special and marginalised. And those are precisely who this comes from. They know it, we know it. Kids working in vocational jobs don't buy this bullshit either. And actually nor do the silent majority at universities, either - activists are loud but relatively low in numbers.

• Mumsnet policy is that we can use male pronouns for male sex offenders, however they identify.

Lisa Nandy's problem is not that we don't understand.

We understand rather too well and considerably more than Nandy does.

Unfortunately, we have something akin to Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns here. Nandy has no comprehension of the vast scale of what she doesn't know or understand relative to the depth of knowledge and understanding that others possess. That would be the others who, like Thornberry, she highlights as in need of education.

they know they're fairly safe in condemning women in prison to horrific risk alongside male offenders, because people tend to lack sympathy for prisoners, women or men, and to argue that they should have thought of that etc etc etc - they don't know the backgrounds of most women in jail is usually traumatic to the nth degree

MPs (including Labour leadership candidates) should be directed to the Female Offender Strategy presented to Parliament
by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
June 2018

Foreward by Rt. Hon David Gauke MP
Secretary of State for Justice
(extract)
People make choices and behave in ways which cause hurt and harm to others and wider damage to our society. It is right that we punish those behaviours and expect individuals to take responsibility for their actions. However, that is only part of the story. Offenders are part of our society and we must take steps to understand and address the underlying causes of offending, if we are to improve the lives of victims and support offenders to turn their own lives around.
The evidence shows us that vulnerability is not just a consequence of crime. It can also drive offending behaviour and prevent people from breaking out of a cycle of reoffending.

This is particularly stark when we look at female offenders. We know that there is a higher prevalence of need amongst female offenders, such as mental health problems, and self-harm. Many experience chaotic lifestyles which are often the product of a life of abuse
and trauma; almost 60% of female offenders have experienced domestic abuse.

I am convinced that if we take the right approach to female offenders – one that addresses vulnerability, follows the evidence about what works in supporting them to turn their lives around, and treats them as individuals of value – it could have substantial benefits for victims, families, and wider society, as well as for female offenders themselves." (continues)
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719819/female-offender-strategy.pdf

See also 'Female Offender Strategy- First Anniversary'
June 2019 Made by: Edward Argar (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice)

(extract)
"Today marks the first anniversary of the publication of the Government’s female offender strategy. With its roots in Baroness Corston’s seminal review of vulnerable women in the justice system in 2007, our strategy set out plans to improve outcomes for women at all points of the justice system, based on our vision to see:

fewer women coming into the criminal justice system
fewer women in custody, especially on short-term sentences, and a greater proportion of women managed in the community successfully; and
better conditions for those in custody.
Female offenders can be amongst the most vulnerable in society, in both the prevalence and complexity of their needs. Many experience chaotic lifestyles involving substance misuse, mental health problems, homelessness and offending behaviour, which are often the product of a life of abuse and trauma.

Frequently, women in custody are sentenced for non-violent, low level but persistent offences, often for short periods of time. If we take the right approach to female offenders, one that addresses their vulnerability, follows the evidence about what works in supporting them to turn their lives around, and treats them as individuals of value, it could have substantial benefits for victims, families, and offenders themselves. The strategy launched a programme of work that will take some years to deliver. On this first anniversary, I should like to celebrate the improvements that are already taking place" (continues)

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-06-27/HCWS1662/

It is incomprehensible to me how anyone who has worked for homeless charities such as Centrepoint would not be aware of the sex specific offending patterns & vulnerabilities of females

It’s interesting how the standard answer to the safeguarding problem of allowing men into women’s refuges/prisons etc is always ‘if there’s a problem we’ll deal with it – there are procedures in place to stop wrongdoing by anyone.’ And yet, the fact that this (now infamous) young constituent is being bullied in school seems to be proof that the denial of biological reality should be enshrined in law.

Why not tackle the bullying?

Thanks rowan. Your work here gives me much reading anf understanding

And it is work

If only them that signed pledges and talked about the most marginlised actually did even half the work you did

Happy to help Lbd

If only those around the candidates thought to consider female prisoners. Google would be their friend & the House of Commons has a library with briefing papers specifically to help MPs.

(cross posted with your second comment)

Does nandy actually believe this "Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

And if so does she apply this to any other area of psychiatry?

Just been watching the fragrant Dr Janina Ramirez on the TV talking about the King of France who wouldn't let his doctors touch him because he thought he was made of glass.

What with being King and all, he got his way.

I also see argument that if the violent TW prisoner poses a problem for women inmates, the solution is to keep the TW prisoner in the women’s estate but in solitary confinement.

Without any recognition AT ALL that solitary confinement has been recognised by prison reformists as torture, in that it can break down a person’s mental state in a very short time, sometimes as little as two weeks.

These people are seriously arguing that it is more humane, more just, to keep a TW in solitary confinement for years in the female estate than to keep a TW prisoner in a wing for vulnerable males in the male estate.

Blinded by ideology, they are both cruel and wrong.

Does nandy actually believe this "Self identifying is a really, really important part of the right of people to say - I know better than a psychiatric assessment who I am."

If she believes this then its a good thing that she hasnt worked on the frontline for homeless charities.

I wonder how Centrepoint would view such assertions.

House of Commons Library briefing
Rough sleepers: access to services and support (England)
Published October 9, 2019
Rough sleepers are one of the most vulnerable groups in society, many with high levels of complex and interrelated needs. This paper provides an overview of the support and services - including accommodation, health, welfare, training, employment and voter registration - that are available for rough sleepers in England, and the challenges rough sleepers can face in accessing them.

The number of rough sleepers in England has increased significantly in recent years. According to Government statistics, the total number of rough sleepers in England in autumn 2018 was 4,677, an increase of 165% compared with 2010 and fractionally lower than the 2017 estimate of 4,751. Many rough sleepers have high levels of complex needs; mental health problems, drug and alcohol dependencies, and institutional experiences are common factors. The longer someone sleeps rough the greater the risk that physical and mental health problems will worsen. Rough sleeping is costly to society as a whole; rough sleepers are likely to have more frequent and sustained contact with public services compared to other citizens.

The current Government was elected with a manifesto commitment to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminate it entirely by 2027. It established a Rough Sleeping and Homelessness Reduction Taskforce, supported by a Rough Sleeping Advisory Panel, to design and implement a cross-government strategy to achieve this.

The Government published its Rough Sleeping Strategy in August 2018, based on a range of ‘prevention’, ‘intervention’ and ‘recovery’ measures and backed by £100 million in funding. It intends to report regularly on progress with implementing the strategy." (continues)
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7698

These people are seriously arguing that it is more humane, more just, to keep a TW in solitary confinement for years in the female estate than to keep a TW prisoner in a wing for vulnerable males in the male estate.

They are arguing for young girls, mostly with autism to be put on a pathway that includes mutilation of their bodies.
Stuff like this shouldn't shock you. The goal is men to have access to women's private space and for it to be a positive thing.

This just further demonstrates she is just listening to one side of the debate.

In fact, she's transparently not debating, despite what she says. She's made her mind up (had it made up) and been brainwashed into thinking that any dissent is to be lumped in as "transphobic".

The TRAs have really done their job with no debate and bigot I'll say that for them.

Just faintly hoping that she has responded like this because she knows she's on a losing wicket. And trying to look at this as sunlight.

It is a policy of putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Which is strangley appropriate for the present-day Labour Party.

The goal is men to have access to women's private space and for it to be a positive thing.

It is MRA

They are arguing for young girls, mostly with autism to be put on a pathway that includes mutilation of their bodies.
Stuff like this shouldn't shock you. The goal is men to have access to women's private space and for it to be a positive thing.

And I'll add to this, politicians of the left and right have no humanity left to see harm caused to others for this goal as wrong.