MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

Wouldn't it be lovely if it was also considered a legitimate aim to even basically consider that female people have mental and physical health, never mind protect it, and that they should have a basic human right not to be sexually assaulted by a male person.

It just staggers me. Emotional support animals get more protection under law than this.

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

Less than 2 percent of the rapes even reported ( many many don't even bother) even result in a prosecution. Not having a rape on your record is no indication of not being a rapist.

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"

Is this a completely disingenuous statement as it doesn’t make it clear this ‘assessment’ only applies to prisoners without a GRC and all the GRC holders get out straight into the female estate?

And doesn’t address the fact that despite such ‘assessments’ the MoJ have failed to prevent a number of attacks so the ‘assessments’ are criminally inadequate.

However, we have to assume that these assessments have prevented a number of attacks from taking place (otherwise they are worse than useless), so not carrying out any assessments should result in a far greater proportion of attacks.

And how many assessments are carried out on prisoners with a GRC?? None! Karen Jones is living proof that you can be a convicted would-be rapist (only the lack of erection prevented it) and still get a GRC.

@MichelleofzeResistance

Wouldn't it be lovely if it was also considered a legitimate aim to even basically consider that female people have mental and physical health, never mind protect it, and that they should have a basic human right not to be sexually assaulted by a male person.

It just staggers me. Emotional support animals get more protection under law than this.

This.

It's just unbelievable. It goes to show just how poisonous the narrative of 'trans women have to be affirmed or they will kill them selves' truly is.

It seems it is more important not to commit the 'literal violence' of denying a trans woman the validation they seek than to protect women from actual literal violence.

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".

A tiny data sample of sexual assaults THAT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF PENIS PEOPLE HADN'T BEEN LOCKED IN WITH WOMEN.

What the data proves is that a 0% risk INCREASED AND WOMEN WERE ASSAULTED because of THEIR DECISION.

Fuck. My blood pressure.

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.

The relevant part of the EA isn't even talking about trans people. If you took the other interpretation it would mean assessing every person!

@teawamutu that wording is so disgustingly dismissive. Sounds just like TRA - it never happens and even if it does it's just a few bad apples and anyway Women commit sexual assaults on Women as well etc etc

@gardenbird48

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).

That’s what I was getting at in my earlier post, you’ve put it better. A case isn’t necessarily an individual person. Works well for Stonewalls interpretation, as we saw when Tara Hudson successfully leveraged the principle with no GRC, and no intention of getting one, where the principle was “this one harm, to this one person is unacceptable”. Weird that it works less well when it’s “just one” (or seven) sexual assaults, when the principle of “this one harm to this one person” suddenly isn’t compelling...

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".

n+1 innit

Surprised not to see our usual n+1’s here stating those involved are not blah blah de blah ...

Exactly how many TW prisoners committed those just under 2 sexual assaults per year? Surely these figures are known. What percentage of this group committed this number of assaults on women prisoners.

Considering there is such a small number in the entire estate, what is the projected percentage of assaults to be regarded as acceptable for women prisoners to absorb? And what exactly is the lifetime impact on each of those women of having survived that assault they were subjected to because to expose them to that assault was part of the planned meeting the mental and physical health of the other prisoner?

The bit from the article that is confusing to me is the claim from the claimant and prosecution (FDJ & KM) that the offender (J) has a gender recognition certificate but the MoJ are denying that.

What's going on there? Are they trying to hide the fact that the supposedly robust GRC panel give out GRC's to convicted rapists who are already in the prison system and have already assaulted women in a prison setting?

Or are they saying here that they don't know/have no record of a GRC for this person because they never ask the question or record the data because they are operating a de-facto Self ID system?

I will be in meetings for part of today so if others able to update the thread in my absence that would be great. Thanks to everyone who did so yesterday.
I am interested to hear the MOJ’s explanation this afternoon.

The thread has been brilliant, thanks Chazs unfortunately am occupied and was most of yesterday too, but there has been some great input, which is really valuable for the rest of us

Court reconvenes at 10 so FPFW should be live tweeting again shortly.

Or are they saying here that they don't know/have no record of a GRC for this person because they never ask the question or record the data because they are operating a de-facto Self ID system?

The advice appears to be that it is illegal to ask for a GRC. So it is entirely possible that they have no idea who’s got what.

I looked at this website and my first thought was that this is a specific trans support website and may be using a false Stonewall version of the law on this so I was going to check the actual law.

Then I realised that the MoJ are actually more likely to be using this version of the law than checking the reality so here it is...

For instance it might be reasonable for an organisation to disclose something to the police if you or someone else’s life is at risk. They can only disclose information that is relevant though, and your gender history or trans identity is very unlikely to be relent in most situations. It is also illegal for a service or employer to ask if you have a GRC, because they should treat everyone the same regardless of their gender history. To challenge a service or employer about confidentiality you can get legal help from a solicitor,

Are there extra protections for trans people?
Yes, but only if you have applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). You don’t need to have been granted one to be protected though. Once you’ve applied, section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act says that it’s illegal for representatives of public bodies, services, businesses or employers to share your previous name, gender history or trans identity without your consent. The difference is that it’s a criminal law so instead of you needing to hire a lawyer, the police should deal with it for you. If a court finds someone guilty, they get a criminal record and a maximum fine of £5000.

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".

How angering that zero aim to right to live and protect women's mental and physical health.
If seven sexual assaults have been proved that means there are possibly hundreds more unreported or not proved Isn't prosecution rate for rape only one and a bit percent? One assault is too many.
Even with no assaults, no physical contact at all, just being looked at up and down, stared at with him licking his lips etc by a male offender is abuse, this is mental torture imposed on incarcerated women, it's a sign that the whole nation thinks they are worthless and I will not stand for that.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I will be in meetings for part of today so if others able to update the thread in my absence that would be great. Thanks to everyone who did so yesterday. I am interested to hear the MOJ’s explanation this afternoon.

Thanks Chazs - great thread and I’ll be popping in regularly

Thanks gardenbird that might be it. It's such messed up thinking, it makes my head explode.

Bet these repulsive creatures would have something to say about this if it was happening to their own daughters.

Anyone involved in these decisions should be made to stand in front of the victims, look them in the eye and explain why they thought it was ok. Or fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness.

AaaarrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRgggRrrrrrr

I would like the MOJ to state what the acceptable number of entirely avoidable sexual assaults is. If the answer is greater than zero someone should be sacked.

Yes, I would like them to answer that too.

No reporting as yet. Hope it's not technical problems yet again.

Archived version of the telegraph article. Very clear summary. A few readers will boggle over their toast.
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210302193130/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/02/female-prisoners-greater-risk-sexual-assault-transgender-inmates/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210302193130/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/02/female-prisoners-greater-risk-sexual-assault-transgender-inmates/

The oddest thing about the different approach to trans men & trans women is that some of the trans women they have placed with female prisoners are exactly the kind of prisoner (violent, sex offender etc) that they try & keep trans men safe from by not allowing them in with the men.