Times article on the CPS guidance withdrawl

[Igneococcus]

Not sure my thread title makes sense or is spelled right (waiting for migraine nedication to kick in) but here it is:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/73b14124-8bc6-11ea-8030-261bf7d8ac38?shareToken=d0f1b79461622bc4560ac347cee25f8d

Great, thanks for the share token. That bit at the end is chilling though,

CPS spokesman said that it was committed to tackling hate crime. He said that the guidance was not about prosecuting young people but educating them and that it would be reviewed.

I loathe the use of 'educate'. What, specifically, do the CPS want to teach young people?

What, specifically, do the CPS want to teach young people?

And do they have the time?

If they have spare time they think they could be using to educate young people they could perhaps look into their rape conviction stats first.

Have the CPS been educating people (men) about yelling abuse from cars?

Or is this the first time they've been educators?

Her lawyer also argued that the CPS guidance meant that she risked arrest if she campaigned in school for groups that challenged trans right

I'm.not sure I like this bit. Trans people are not being denied any rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. What they want and what they shouldnt have is the right to have access to half naked members of the opposite sex.

I dont like the headline either. Kind of gives the impression they want the freedom to bully trans people which is obviously not the case.

Thankfully the rest if the article is surprisingly well written and is clearer than usual that the problem is biological.males in female designated areas .

Maybe the CPS schools work could concentrate on the real crime of children who are raped and sexually assault at school. There have been cases of sexual assault in schools from as young as six years old.

Maybe, in the process of doing that work, they would realise that pushing the trans agenda takes away a girls right to say no to any males in what should be their single sex facilities.

Excellent point, StarintheMorning

And yes, the Crown Prosecution Service are the Crown Prosecution Service, not a "educational" organisation.

The CPS' job is not educating people.

Her lawyer also argued that the CPS guidance meant that she risked arrest if she campaigned in school for groups that challenged trans right

Bollocks. 'Her lawyer also argued that the CPS guidance meant that she risked arrest if she campaigned in school for groups that protect female rights .' Which is perceived by the political lobby in question as challenging 'trans rights' since the desires of that lobby (not trans people in general) are incompatible with females not being subordinate at all times. It's male supremacy. You'd be forgiven reading most of the stuff from the lobby that biologically female trans people didn't exist. It's because within the lobby agenda, they pretty much don't.

And if CPS have lost the plot to the point of believing they're an education unit, no wonder they're so bloody useless. They're the crown prosecution service, the only 'education' they can offer in this is the details of how they plan to prosecute children born female for not subordinating themselves wholly and meekly to children born male.

Her lawyer also argued that the CPS guidance meant that she risked arrest if she campaigned in school for groups that challenged trans right

I'm.not sure I like this bit. Trans people are not being denied any rights. They have the same rights as everyone else. What they want and what they shouldnt have is the right to have access to half naked members of the opposite sex.

Completely agree. That bit stood out for me. I know no one who is against trans people having rights and there's no indication that the girl in this case is against it.
What we're against is the removal and watering down of women's rights.

.. the only 'education' they can offer in this is the details of how they plan to prosecute children born female for not subordinating themselves wholly and meekly to children born male...

If they were honest! Good point, michelle.

...she could be prosecuted for a hate crime if she told friends that she would not date a trans girl.

This is misleading. Does she mean she would not date a girl who thinks she is a boy, or a boy who thinks he is a girl?

Either way, she has the right not to date such a person, but I find it hard to figure out what is actually meant. How much more the average reader who does not know the terminology. I assume it's the former case: she wouldn't date a girl who presents as a boy.

the language around this is so very confusing.

The word "educate" in that context always means "brainwash".

I know it is good the CPS has withdrawn the guidance but I would have liked to have seem it go to court - it needs to be pulled apart in public and for the CPS to have to justify themselves in front of a judge so clear decisions can be made. That is why it was pulled - to avoid this not (or perhaps because) they know it is wrong. They ate just playing cat and mouse.

reminicent of send them to the gulags prodigalkitten...

This is like the Scottish Govt consultation that sought to 'educate' people, isn't it?

The word 'Educate' has been repurposed, hasn't it? To mean 'force to accept'. It's quite alarming.

To offer clarification, the girl in question did this because she is concerned about the rights of girls to say no to the opposite sex without being accused of any kind of crime. She holds no animosity to trans people, and indeed has trans friends. She is polite and respectful, heck, she even uses the pronouns her friends like. But she saw the example in the guidance of the obvious male coming into female toilets, and that the girls who object are presented as committing a hate incident, and her first thought was being able to deal with her periods in a male free environment and not be prosecuted because she said no.

She's also said to me, given that she has experienced bullying to the degree of needing to change schools, that she thinks all bullying is wrong and should be challenged, but the point is that this guidance wouldn't stop bullying. It would just tell girls to shut up.

Well, they are seeking to assert the right of trans people to over-ride the rights of others. So, in that sense I suppose it's arguing for rights, the right of males to use female toilets? And criminalising anyone who attempts to denymales the right to use female toilets.

The word 'Educate' has been repurposed, hasn't it? To mean 'force to accept'. It's quite alarming.

It is.

And certainly never clearer than when the Crown Prosecution Service decide that such "education" is part of their remit. Let's look at the tools they have for "educating". Hmmm.

The word 'Educate' has been repurposed, hasn't it? To mean 'force to accept'. It's quite alarming.

Very reminiscent of Stalin's "re-education" camps.

"Educate " is the kind of public's sector Comms bullshit that even my office has stopped doing.
The only people who make decisions about whether to prosecute (in England) are the CPS. The only people they might need to "educate" are the police who refer cases to them and our elected representatives who decide the laws in the first place (often based on successful or failed prosecutions or matters rejected for prosecution by CPS) It helps the public to have some general idea about how its legal system works but not what is or is not suitable for prosecution. Interested parties can lobby elected representatives but controversial and legally flawed "guidance " helps no one.

from article in OP

In a short statement after the CPS withdrew its guidance, the girl said: “I’m happy that I’ve been able to have helped girls all over the country keep their right to say no and not get accused of bullying.”

She has done this and is 14 years old.

It would be really interesting to find out what other education packs the CPS is involved with. I couldn't see anything about involvement in education on an initial read of their website.

I agree about the convoluted language: that little round trip around linguistics is hiding the truth that the political lobby seeks to threaten and criminalise young lesbians for not extending sex to males. And to punish young girls for telling friends that even in theory their homosexuality means they would not use their body to validate a male's chosen identity. And it is, as always, all and only about girls and controlling them.

It's as dark as the bit about trans children must be unquestioningly allowed to join any friendship group they choose, on their say so, with the other children being criminalised for in any way presenting barriers to this regardless of circumstances.

And there must be a special and implied much more serious, effective and protective response provided at a higher level for children who are trans who experience bullying, over and above the responses to all other children.

That the proposers of this aren't able to see the immediate, bloody great concrete obelisks of problems this would cause in practice, not least for children who are trans, tells you most of what you need to know about who wrote it, their interest in and respect for law or other people, and their ability to think with the kind of open handed skills and professional awareness of all people affected and the individual needs of all groups that is required when you make policy.