MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

I had no idea so many people lacked empathy and were so callous.

Totally off topic but with sex work an awful lot of people seem to take the line of you're worried your DH will go off, you look down on them etc etc

I always find that very weird. For me it's always been 'there but for the grace of God' (not that I'm religious!).

It's empathy.

I'm learning a lot about people what with covid, lack of empathy about various things etc etc

And of course while as a pretty much lifelong feminist I knew that women were secondary.

But all this is just something else.

Intact male rapists in womens prisons in the UK in 2020.

I could never even have imagined that would happen. It's completely mad. And so cruel. And our justice system decided it was a good idea.

There but for the grace of god is exactly right NiceGerbil

it made it onto the news.... at 16 minutes past bloody midnight...

What channel BlackeyedSusan?

I think how I thought most/'decent' people thought was very naive.

I'm in my late 40s FFS and only just realised!

I think Brexit/covid etc has exposed how a lot of people feel and felt all along but felt they couldn't say it.

A very me and mine approach (understandable, we're only too clever for our own good monkeys after all!) and with covid a very strong authoritan streak.

So you live and learn.

In a way now I have lived more and learned more I am both more open to listening to everyone. But also more sure that my own views are my own. I always had views that went against the grain and got shit for it but now I am just very confident in them.

And this is why of course so many men can't abide middle aged and older women.

"Paris Green had both 'consensual' sexual relations and sexually assaulted women.
Do you have any evidence she sexually assaulted anyone whilst in prison because I've never seen any."

Here you go, jj1968 . I found a reference to it on trans crime, was in the Telegraph. It's quite good to be able to read about this person whom the Scottish government think should be housed with women.

Thanks for giving me cause to look. Illuminating.
transcrimeuk.com/2017/10/30/paris-green/

LangClegsInSpace Radio 4. got about 1 minute

Well spotted, vivarium. As well as being convicted for torturing a man to death, it's alleged that PG was removed from a prison for sexually assaulting other inmates.

[quote vivariumvivariumsvivaria]"Paris Green had both 'consensual' sexual relations and sexually assaulted women.
Do you have any evidence she sexually assaulted anyone whilst in prison because I've never seen any."

Here you go, jj1968 . I found a reference to it on trans crime, was in the Telegraph. It's quite good to be able to read about this person whom the Scottish government think should be housed with women.

Thanks for giving me cause to look. Illuminating.
transcrimeuk.com/2017/10/30/paris-green/[/quote]
Thank you.

Really though, asking for evidence that sexual contact between Green and female inmates was non-consensual is spectacularly missing the point.

The vast, vast majority of women who are sexually assaulted, even outside of prison, do not report. The vast majority of sexual assaults that are reported are not fully investigated and very few cases get as far as prosecution, let alone conviction.

Vanishingly few women who have been sexually assaulted can provide evidence. Many don't even recognise they have been assaulted because of harm from previous abuse and this is especially true of the female prison population. Women who have been submitting to unwanted sex as a means to survive since childhood will have no clear idea of what 'consent' means and it's incredibly unfair to expect this of them.

That's why safeguarding applies not only to children but also to vulnerable or at risk adults. In the context of women's prisons, if safeguarding was working properly, then no female prisoner would ever be put in the position of consenting or not consenting to sexual advances from a male prisoner.

And even if she was completely mentally healthy and totally into having consensual sex with her male cellmate, if she became pregnant this would raise a whole other set of safeguarding issues.

We have single sex prisons to prevent rape, sexual assault and pregnancy among other reasons. I can't believe this needs spelling out.

@teawamutu

Women have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with intact male rapists.

I mean. What. The. Actual. Fucking. Fuck?

This needs to be a post in AIBU.... That first sentence sums it up so succinctly.

How “kind” would you have to be to think that this is ok?

A friend asked me why I was upset about this - I’m never likely to go to prison.

What a disgustingly selfish and callous point of view.

Agree Nonny. Replies over on AIBU give me hope.

@WhoWh0 good idea. done

Women have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with intact male rapists

In a nutshell. We always should bring it back to that, though I’d express it as: do women have the right not to be locked up with male bodied individuals? Yes/no.

Also agree with the point on the effective use of “case by case”, that it still allows for application of principles, it doesn’t need to be person by person, and it shouldn’t be because that makes it seem discriminatory against individuals.

Watching with interest today...

@Sophoclesthefox

Women have to go to court to beg not to be locked up with intact male rapists

In a nutshell. We always should bring it back to that, though I’d express it as: do women have the right not to be locked up with male bodied individuals? Yes/no.

Also agree with the point on the effective use of “case by case”, that it still allows for application of principles, it doesn’t need to be person by person, and it shouldn’t be because that makes it seem discriminatory against individuals.

Watching with interest today...

Case by case is problematic and doesn't stand up if there are cases which have been allowed but issues have occurred. Which we know is the situation.

These cases would not have been able to happen if single sex provision was available.

Women are the collateral damage to a men's right movement.

We know there is a pattern of behaviour which continues despite declarations of gender. We are not talking about one offs. It's documented and can be studied. Yet the authorities choose to ignore it in the name of inclusivity. Without considering potential harm to others even in the legitimate problem to be considered pile.

Inclusivity box ticking is more important than potential harm to women. Because women are lesser. Again it comes back to women being more dispensible and male issues trumps female ones. It always does.

Thanks for that link to the select committee langscleg. Lots of useful stuff so have kept the link for later

@stuckinatrap

I don't want to speak too soon - and it is off topic, but usually we get at least a handful of posters on threads like this coming to call us awful transphobes, asking why we have 'another trans bashing thread' and calling us scaremongerers.

Where are they?

Could it be that this is actually entirely indefensible?!

Was just about to chip in with that. Would be interested in hearing how this can be defended. It so rawly lays out that trans rights are being advanced at the expense of women's rights, even the protection of the most vulnerable women in society comes second place to the rights of trans women. This is wholly indefensible.

Just reading the AIBU thread. Marvellous stuff.

It's been said many times on this board that sports might be the issue that topples the whole ideology - but wouldn't it be wonderful if women rose up about vulnerable prisoners?

@NonnyMouse1337

A friend asked me why I was upset about this - I’m never likely to go to prison.

What a disgustingly selfish and callous point of view.

Yes. It never ceases to amaze me how disgustingly selfish, self-centred and callous some people are. They truly don’t care if it doesn’t affect them personally right now.

Case by case is problematic and doesn't stand up if there are cases which have been allowed but issues have occurred. Which we know is the situation.

I was of the understanding that case by case looks at a type of provision as a case ie. is is considered that ALL hospital wards should be segregated by sex - it is hospital wards that are the case.

Stonewall et al have managed to twist it to imply a case refers to an individual person but I've heard other legal explanation that this is not true at all (and I think it states it clearly in the EA 2010).

Stonewall et al have managed to twist it to imply a case refers to an individual person but I've heard other legal explanation that this is not true at all (and I think it states it clearly in the EA 2010)

Yes I think that’s just Stonewall law. The EA (or the guidance notes) is clear that a case relates to the service provided rather than having to assess each individual trans person.

Telegraph article about the case. Apols if a repost but I didn't spot it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/02/female-prisoners-greater-risk-sexual-assault-transgender-inmates/

Excerpt

The hearing, taking place before Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice Swift, was told that there were 125 trans prisoners in 2017, 60 of whom were serving sentences for sexual offences. Of those 60, 27 were serving a prison sentence for rape.

Ms Monaghan also told the hearing that, between 2016 and 2020, there were seven sexual assaults against females in women's prisons by trans women.

FDJ is also challenging a separate policy in relation to a "high-risk trans prisoner unit" at HMP Downview in Surrey, which was created in March 2019.

However, the MoJ argues that both of its policies pursue legitimate aims, including "facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people's mental and physical health".

The case was originally due to be heard in October but was adjourned after the MoJ disclosed potentially important documents less than an hour before the hearing.

At a brief hearing in October, FDJ’s lawyers claimed the current MoJ policy "exposes female prisoners to a risk of sexual assault that would not (otherwise) arise".

At the time, Ms Monaghan said the policy was put in place despite "the extraordinary vulnerability of female prisoners and the prevalence of a history of abuse and gendered violence". She also claimed MoJ statistics suggested that trans prisoners were "five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates in women's jails than other prisoners are".

However, Sarah Hannett, representing the MoJ, said the claim was based on "a tiny data sample of seven sexual assaults over ... a four-year period", from which it was "impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion".

She added that an individual's "offending history" was considered when deciding where to allocate a transgender prisoner and that the risk of harm they may present to other prisoners was a "fundamental consideration".

archive.is/Ti9bW

It is absolutely infuriating. Illegal and unethical.

Even if it was person-by-person... They're violent criminals with cocks. Surely not one of them passes the imaginary "but this one's lovely and harmless" test!

It's incredible really. It seems all the grown ups have left the room and the children have taken their place, lying, cheating and changing policy to remove women's rights to any safety and dignity whatsoever.