MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women'.

Umm... Hang on. They had 3 transwomen. And they needed "association with other women". How would not putting the 3 transwomen together not achieve this?

@Sophoclesthefox

So you can’t ask if someone has a GRC.

Being a convicted rapist is no bar to getting a GRC,

There’s no process to having a GRC rescinded, either by compulsion or voluntarily (as with Keira Bell, who would like to revert back to her sex, but I think cannot do so).

There is a presumption being made that a wrong is being done if any natal male person, who may or may not have a GRC (because you’re not permitted to ask) is denied the option to be in the female estate because of their identity.

So the policy boils down to the only bar between a rapist and a bed in a cell with a woman being their own better nature, based on the assumption that no one would lie about their gender identity?

I wonder, which sort of man would be motivated to lie about their gender identity?

And what actual, practical use is a GRC if it can’t be used in cases like this?

It's fucking appalling that a man can apply for and get a GRC whilst in prison serving time for rape or any sexual or violent offence.

It's fucking appalling that a holder of a GRC cannot have it revoked if they are convicted of rape or any sexual or violent offence against a female and they are then incarcerated with a ready cache of victims who cannot escape.

It doesn't matter if they don't assault or rape the women they are incarcerated with their very presence will be intimidating and cause fear and distress to the vulnerable women at their disposal.

Is this what female prisoners have to expect on their incarceration, not just a loss of liberty but the additional punishment of being raped or sexually assaulted or the constant fear that they might be? If that isn't cruel and unusual punishment I don't know what is.

(Gah, too many "not"s. You know what I mean...)

How many assaults have been averted? How many near misses were prevented by the success of the protocol?

In a properly used risk assessment process, near misses should be recorded and acted on to close loopholes/develop the practice.

They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women

That's a nice fig leaf they've got there.

Late submission to court in October 2020 discussed. Minister decided not to waive privilege to what was in the papers seen at the time. But Lucy Fraser confirms now that the policy decision made was no different to what she's make now /25

Defence counsel makes the point that in effect it doesn't matter if the minister didn't have all the information needed when making the policy decision. Because the decision made in light of all the info is the same /26

Break for lunch.

Let’s campaign for and end to the GRA and the abolition of the GRC. Not fit for purpose.

I bloody hope Penny Mordaunt is watching this

They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women

Validation Protocol AGAIN, no thought given to the women they are associating with AGAIN

The evidence is now perfectly clear that women are considered sub human, collateral damage and tools for males to abuse and use at will and this is sanctioned by Government and all Political Parties.

Bit of an odd question but here goes:

Suppose a MTF trans person commits a crime. It is a non-sexual crime.

In the unlikely, but we are told possible, scenario that it is not immediately obvious they were born male, they do not have a GRC, but their passport says F, would the fact they are male get picked up? And how? Are birth certificates routinely asked for?

@Dalyesque

Let’s campaign for and end to the GRA and the abolition of the GRC. Not fit for purpose.

www.repealthegra.org

They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women

Women, the support humans and prop for males.

The GRC process is a mess, you can get one even if you have been convicted of crimes which suggest you are less than honest or you are a risk to women.

This case should be shining a great light on 1. How poor the law is 2. How shoddy the interpretation of that law is by government bodies and quangos 3. how much women are some sort of vile comfort blanket

I'll bet you've all got lots more but those I mine in the pot.

So the policy boils down to the only bar between a rapist and a bed in a cell with a woman being their own better nature

What baffles me is that the NSPCC strongly advise that opposite sex siblings don't share a room over the age of 10. Children. Presumably for privacy/dignity? But it's all dandy throwing a rapist amongst vulnerable women and forcing them to share?

Probably a bad analogy, I know, I just can't get my head around any of this. It's evil. The people allowing this are stone cold psychopaths. No conscience. No empathy. Not a jot of care (for women, anyway.)

@NecessaryScene1

They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women'.

Umm... Hang on. They had 3 transwomen. And they needed "association with other women". How would not putting the 3 transwomen together not achieve this?

Brilliant! Because TWAW!

I am positive that Mordaunt is in the 'some of you may be harassed/assaulted but this is a price I am willing to pay for the great good' camp.

And that the important right of a TW to associate with other women is far more important than the rights of the women being used to meet the TW's, with the risk to them being a regrettable but acceptable downside. There would probably be a lot of reminders in there about privilege. And reproach to women who worry about their own needs and safety when there is a highly vulnerable, most oppressed person who they should be supporting.

@highame

I bloody hope Penny Mordaunt is watching this

She along with Crispin Blunt and Michael Cashman wold call comments such as the ones in this thread, 'transphobic', 'hateful' and they definately won't watch it. They'll hear the outcome of the case and uncritically call it hateful and transphobic without any detail. because detail like rapes doesn't concern them. The men are anti women and the women who support them got where they are by toeing the mens line. And women who stand up for women like Joanna Cherry get cancelled and get threats.

@Whydoyouthinkthatthen

Bit of an odd question but here goes:

Suppose a MTF trans person commits a crime. It is a non-sexual crime.

In the unlikely, but we are told possible, scenario that it is not immediately obvious they were born male, they do not have a GRC, but their passport says F, would the fact they are male get picked up? And how? Are birth certificates routinely asked for?

I think they’d find out from the medical side.

A MTF who passes would presumably need to stay on meds to continue to pass and i believe all meds are controlled in U.K. prisons. So in theory they may briefly be believed to be female, but not for long.

(I may be wrong here. Feel free to correct me)

@Sophoclesthefox

3 options given to minister in Jan 2019 - all three go into E wing, all three go into general population, or put them in an E wing on the male estate. They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women'

The female estate is not a forum for the validation of high risk male born prisoners. Astonishing that this even needs said.

It's beyond shocking.

Where did this idea come from? James Barrett's recommendation in the Jones case?

@Sophoclesthefox

So you can’t ask if someone has a GRC.

Being a convicted rapist is no bar to getting a GRC,

There’s no process to having a GRC rescinded, either by compulsion or voluntarily (as with Keira Bell, who would like to revert back to her sex, but I think cannot do so).

There is a presumption being made that a wrong is being done if any natal male person, who may or may not have a GRC (because you’re not permitted to ask) is denied the option to be in the female estate because of their identity.

So the policy boils down to the only bar between a rapist and a bed in a cell with a woman being their own better nature, based on the assumption that no one would lie about their gender identity?

I wonder, which sort of man would be motivated to lie about their gender identity?

And what actual, practical use is a GRC if it can’t be used in cases like this?

Not quite.

The ONLY use for a GRC is to change your birth certificate. Prison allocations are initially made according to legal sex - what's on the birth certificate.

So tw prisoners with a birth certificate that says F are automatically placed in the female estate and are not even recorded anywhere as trans.

Tw prisoners with a birth certificate that says M are 'risk assessed' before being placed in the female estate.

Are GRC's actively recorded? Defence counsel says No. The reason is its a breach of Section 22 of GRA2004. There is NO centralised list kept. /11

Justice H says surely prison needs to know who has a GRC for their policies to work. Counsel says its possible a prisoner may have a GRC without prison knowing. Prison only knows if the trans person discloses /12

This bit blew my mind. If even the criminal justice system isn't asking convicted offenders about GRCs and previous identities, the GRC is a simple route for concealing relevant offences for Disclosure and Barring Service and safeguarding checks. The privacy accommodations in the GRC need to be removed. This is information which is relevant and necessary for the safety of the public and vulnerable groups. By all means strengthen protections against discrimination for trans people in the EA2010, but the GRA has to go. This is the stark outcome of a legal fiction crashing headlong into reality. It is indefensible.

I know there is the "if", but the comparison between these 2 statements by the judge and defence counsel is interesting.

if the Equality Act really should have been considered, it doesn't matter what the Secretary of State for Justice thought about it. If it should have been considered and wasn’t, then this was wrong.” Lord Justice Holroyde

Defence counsel makes the point that in effect it doesn't matter if the minister didn't have all the information needed when making the policy decision. Because the decision made in light of all the info is the same /26

I hadn't appreciated the bit about not knowing who has a grc and how their treatment differs depending on who does/ doesn't have one (or discloses one). My mind is being continually blown that anyone ever thought any of this was fine.

@teawamutu

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.

I have asked people many times “how many women being raped constitutes acceptable collateral damage” and I’ve never once had a reply.

@BettyFilous

Are GRC's actively recorded? Defence counsel says No. The reason is its a breach of Section 22 of GRA2004. There is NO centralised list kept. /11

Justice H says surely prison needs to know who has a GRC for their policies to work. Counsel says its possible a prisoner may have a GRC without prison knowing. Prison only knows if the trans person discloses /12

This bit blew my mind. If even the criminal justice system isn't asking convicted offenders about GRCs and previous identities, the GRC is a simple route for concealing relevant offences for Disclosure and Barring Service and safeguarding checks. The privacy accommodations in the GRC need to be removed. This is information which is relevant and necessary for the safety of the public and vulnerable groups. By all means strengthen protections against discrimination for trans people in the EA2010, but the GRA has to go. This is the stark outcome of a legal fiction crashing headlong into reality. It is indefensible.

This.

It has run its course. It has caused huge legal and social problems and will potentially (and likely quite categorically will, if certain lobbies have their way) harm far more people than it will ever help.

3 options given to minister in Jan 2019 - all three go into E wing, all three go into general population, or put them in an E wing on the male estate. They recommended the first because it was important to provide transwomen with 'association with other women'. /22

I feel sick.