Starting on 28 October Judicial Review of prison guidelines on transgender - and launch of new web site Keep Prisons Single Sex

[stumbledin]

Thanks to recent contributors to the thread started over a year ago about a woman assaulted by a trans person allowed into a women's prison www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3733987-Judicial-review-for-woman-prisoner-alleging-sexual-assault-by-trans-rapist-in-prison there is news that the court case will start this week.

Fairplay for women have info about this on their twitter account pbs.twimg.com/media/ElKU7HjWMAAcN48?format=jpg&name=900x900

Also worth following a new group Keep Prisons Single Sex who are launching their web site soon twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons

And others are also posting on this.

Other thread, Eyes

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3733987-Judicial-review-for-woman-prisoner-alleging-sexual-assault-by-trans-rapist-in-prison?msgid=101238531#101238531

Live tweeters are in the gallery waiting for the case to begin

Fair Play For Women, Keep Prisons Single Sex, Belstaffie and Object UK in court and reporting.

full female priviliges

What, like wearing clothes?

Oops apols

Ignore all the derailing.

It's got fuck all to do with today. Where we are supporting a woman sexually assaulted while she was incarcerated 'at her Majesty's pleasure'. And the Ministry of Justice knew full well that this could be a possibility, because they had been told, over and over.

I may have got this wrong, but it would appear from Fairplay Twitter, that the wrong advice the MOJ was given won't be disclosed?

Will we not find out who gave it, and what it was?

Won't they be implicated?

mobile.twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1321411540952731650

Update

we are supporting a woman sexually assaulted while she was incarcerated 'at her Majesty's pleasure'. And the Ministry of Justice knew full well that this could be a possibility, because they had been told, over and over.

This.

Looks fairly likely then that the privileged stuff contains info that the MoJ would rather wasn't seen.

Which gives a fair idea of who provided the info and misrepresentation/ failure to follow law/ partisan bias etc being likely to be involved.

I see the judge's point that it's not relevant as to whether the advice was wrong for the court to simply decide whether or not the policy as it stands is legal. However if suspicions are correct it is important to show that womens voices and equal interests aren't legally met under the policy but that the policy was intentionally constructed to exclude and disregard them. A feature, not a bug, and that's important information of public interest with many wider ramifications.

@MichelleofzeResistance

Looks fairly likely then that the privileged stuff contains info that the MoJ would rather wasn't seen.

Which gives a fair idea of who provided the info and misrepresentation/ failure to follow law/ partisan bias etc being likely to be involved.

I see the judge's point that it's not relevant as to whether the advice was wrong for the court to simply decide whether or not the policy as it stands is legal. However if suspicions are correct it is important to show that womens voices and equal interests aren't legally met under the policy but that the policy was intentionally constructed to exclude and disregard them. A feature, not a bug, and that's important information of public interest with many wider ramifications.

Indeed.

And it's the outside enough that women have to go to court, piecemeal, one case after the other, in a never ending line of cases, when they have all been informed by the same illegal advice coming from the same source.

@Butterer

Can anyone direct me to how/where to donate to, btw?

Just for those who haven't seen it. If you google fair play for women and the most popular funding site, you get to the garden that needs a bit of a turnover.

"Judge: No opinion but to adjorn the case" - on FPFW tweet

Oh jeez

Tweet

Sounds like the MOJ have really screwed the pooch.

Almost seems deliberate. Are they protecting themselves with this delay? Or the relevant parties?

The MOJ, Stonewall Diversity Champions whose Chief People Officer is a former Stonewall trustee...

No conflict of interest here. Nope.

Frustrated on behalf of the women who have put so much into this.
Stay strong.

Oh, they like to drag things out. MoJ with no worries about limited funds, of course. Taxpayers funding this pish.

Meanwhile, women who can ill afford it are having to undergo more stress, more cost, just to cling onto the tiny shred of hope that we might be able to protect women in prison from being locked up with rapists.

just to cling onto the tiny shred of hope that we might be able to protect women in prison from being locked up with rapists.

It's mind blowing that it's come to this

Tweet from FPFW:

Court has returned.
Orders to be made:

1. JR adjourned to a date to be fixed
2. Defendent must disclose by 6th Dec 2020
3. Applications must be made by 28th November 2020
4. Defendant to pay claimants costs due to todays hearing

So some time in New Year.

Poor Womens and some people's equalities committee. Another inquiry, all that info to wade through again, and the result of this case which could impact on it won't come in until quite a long way into the process, if not right after it.

Yeah Michelle. Odd that isn’t it

Well I suppose it'll give their employees something to do to take it all apart again and re write it. Twas on a Monday morning and all that.