MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

According to BBC Bitesize:

The Gaols Act of 1823 stated that "prisons should be made secure; gaolers should be paid; female prisoners should be kept separately from male prisoners; doctors and chaplains should visit prisons and lastly, attempts should be made to reform prisoners."

www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z938v9q/revision/5

This law was enacted thanks in large part to the campaigning work of Elizabeth Fry. I bet she'd have had a few things to say about the current clusterfuck.

The current version of the rule that male and female prisoners should be held separately is in the Prison Rules 1999

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/728/article/12

@nauticant

Will the MoJ will try to submit their data as confidential and thus being useable only in the legal proceedings and not available to newspapers/the public?

When we do FoIs (university) we either provide person data rounded to the nearest 5, or give exact data but where less than 10 just say 'less than 10' so individuals can't be identified.

Hopefully they'll be able to do that which keeps it public but ensures no individuals can be id'd.

I listened to the KeepPrisonsSingleSex livestream, it was excellent. It's just a shame Dr Coleman's not being interviewed about this on Newsnight or Sky News. This needs to be much more out in the open.

There was some discussion on another thread the other day about what 'living as a man' means in the context of a FtM GRC holder who seeks fertility treatment to become pregnant. The question was: since pregnancy is entirely dependant on having a female reproductive system it can't be consistent with living as a man, and should an individual who does this be stripped of their GRC?

Conversely as I understand it in English law rape is defined as non-consensual penetration with a penis. Since the penis is a male organ then committing rape can't be consistent with living as a woman. In which case surely a MtF GRC holder should be stripped of their status upon conviction for rape?

We could really do with some definition of the term 'living as' a man or women, and perhaps the 'lifestyle' of GRC holders needs to undergo some scrutiny to prevent a GRC becoming a literal get out of jail free card.

The question was: since pregnancy is entirely dependant on having a female reproductive system it can't be consistent with living as a man, and should an individual who does this be stripped of their GRC?

Conversely as I understand it in English law rape is defined as non-consensual penetration with a penis. Since the penis is a male organ then committing rape can't be consistent with living as a woman. In which case surely a MtF GRC holder should be stripped of their status upon conviction for rape?

I've thought this for a long time, Wokery. And you are right - it is back to definitions - and no-one seems able to provide them.

Objective, observable, provable, scientific evidence in the form of biology is negated by subjective, non-observable, non-scientific "feelings" which can' be neither proven nor even described.

I've thought this for a long time, Wokery. And you are right - it is back to definitions - and no-one seems able to provide them.

Objective, observable, provable, scientific evidence in the form of biology is negated by subjective, non-observable, non-scientific "feelings" which can' be neither proven nor even described

I wonder who benefits from the lack of definitions?

"clause 22 sets out the limited circumstances in which disclosure is permissible, for example, for prevention or detection of a crime or in pursuance of a statutory duty."

useful post R0.

I think the list circumstances should be extended and the data on the grc holders made available to any public services involving them.

such as

circumstance: arrested for sexual offence like rape, assualt, csa = data made available in court
and sex used in court
and reported accurately in the press

circumstance: sentenced to prison = data held by the MoJ prison service

Agree Schaden and Wokery, rapists aren't 'living as women' by definition. no rapist should be allowed to change their legal sex to female

I wonder who benefits from the lack of definitions?

People who want to transgress the personal boundaries of others.

@JiggeryWokery

There was some discussion on another thread the other day about what 'living as a man' means in the context of a FtM GRC holder who seeks fertility treatment to become pregnant. The question was: since pregnancy is entirely dependant on having a female reproductive system it can't be consistent with living as a man, and should an individual who does this be stripped of their GRC?

Conversely as I understand it in English law rape is defined as non-consensual penetration with a penis. Since the penis is a male organ then committing rape can't be consistent with living as a woman. In which case surely a MtF GRC holder should be stripped of their status upon conviction for rape?

We could really do with some definition of the term 'living as' a man or women, and perhaps the 'lifestyle' of GRC holders needs to undergo some scrutiny to prevent a GRC becoming a literal get out of jail free card.

it makes a mockery of the legal declaration 'to live as a man/woman until death' (I think that is the wording - it was mentioned in Freddy McConnell's Father on the birth certificate case).

If the law has agreed that people can gain special privileges (changing their birth certificate and being treated differently compared with others of the same sex) as a result of making a legal declaration, then surely something must change if it is apparent that the declaration has no bearing on the person's intentions. Freddy McC. apparently started preparing to conceive a baby 6 days after receiving the GRC - this seems incongruent.

Otherwise, if no actual commitment to adhere to the legal declaration is required, how can it hold any weight legally? No one else has the privilege of changing birth records.

Alternatively it makes clear that 'to live as a man/woman until death' is solely about labels and gender expression. It's one reason why the acknowledgement of the reality of biology drives trans activists into a fury.

@EmpressWitchDoesntBurn

I've thought this for a long time, Wokery. And you are right - it is back to definitions - and no-one seems able to provide them.

Objective, observable, provable, scientific evidence in the form of biology is negated by subjective, non-observable, non-scientific "feelings" which can' be neither proven nor even described

I wonder who benefits from the lack of definitions?

Oooh . . . that's a hard one . . .

Prisons here have been single sex for yonks.

There didn't need to be an EA to make it a thing because it was so fucking obvious that you keep men and women separate, it had been that way for a huge amount of time, and everyone knew perfectly well what a man was and what a woman was, and didn't need a dictionary definition to tell the difference. Which is still true for 99.9999999% of the population of the world.

Remember ladies, you better pay your TV licence or you could be locked up with not just a male, but a male rapist.

Hmmm, maybe the BBC is actually running a covert protection racket?

“For just £150 a year, you can protect yourself from being incarcerated with a rapist!”.... seems like a pretty good deal when you put it like that. Bastards.

Indeed. The MOJ/governor/gov't have facilitated the possibility of sexual assault or rape being added to a woman's sentence.

It fells like they are enabling sexual predators (males who have been convicted of rape or sexual assault) to hurt women who are basically trapped. At least outside women might have had some chance of getting away. Or resort to justice.

Do the prisons have cctv in the cells, I wonder?

The more you think about it the more abusive and dystopian it seems for women.

I must admit i thought the TV licence thing had been stopped.

It's because, there are very few orgs in the UK that can bring prosecutions, outside the cps. TV licencing is one. I believe nspcc is another, and RSPCA.

The TV licencing people spend a huge amount of money every year bringing these prosecutions to court. The fact that women go to prison for it in such numbers comes up every few years. I honestly thought it has been stopped. It's a total scandal.

But no it still goes on.

Having a Google it seems the number imprisoned for it are v low but really should be zero.

Here's a recent article may have been posted upthread.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html%3famp

'The MOJ/governor/gov't have facilitated the possibility of sexual assault or rape being added to a woman's sentence.'

They will all point the finger at each other and say they were doing what they were told was the law.

They failed to use the provisions in the Equality Act which would have given more safety to women.

At the same time, without reference to the bigger picture and ignoring the corresponding rights of women, selectively choosing elements of the Equality Act to allow convicted sexual predators to have access to trapped women.

It's also worth remembering the MPs who are openly in favour of male born rapists being placed in prisons with women - Lisa Nandy comes to mind and presumably other Labour MPs and the Lib Dems are fully on board with this?

@persistentwoman

It's also worth remembering the MPs who are openly in favour of male born rapists being placed in prisons with women - Lisa Nandy comes to mind and presumably other Labour MPs and the Lib Dems are fully on board with this?

Bloody hell, she (LN) doesn't care about women does she?

Cailleach1

Indeed. The MOJ/governor/gov't have facilitated the possibility of sexual assault or rape being added to a woman's sentence.

And serving up vulnerable women who cant escape as part of a rapist's sentence.

It's horrific.

OldCrone sadly yes it seems so . An extraordinary position for anyone to take, although some pretend they never said it. I just hope that the courts finally make a clear judgement to change this dangerous ruling. And that the civil service/ ministers are held to account.