Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The Times Law section Thursday 1st April. Trans judge wants a more diverse judiciary

101 replies

happydappy2 · 01/04/2021 15:39

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/victoria-mccloud-a-transgender-judge-wants-a-more-diverse-judiciary-jc7rqhbc9

The comments are interesting...

OP posts:
IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 02/04/2021 13:08

sorry for the slight derail but this is work that Dr V chose for highlighting and was congratulated for on the Sunday Times 100 Women of the Year list so I think it is relevant.

Thecatonthemat · 02/04/2021 13:21

The problem of name changing in relation to crimes against women and children was specifically mentioned by Said Javid the other evening ( responding to the latest report) it is curious that Robin and Mccloud do not see why this might not be an issue when their attention is drawn to it.
Incidentally I would have really appreciated a wife to support me in my career while childraising etc.

R0wantrees · 02/04/2021 13:21

How does this process represent any significant barrier to someone who was keen to conceal a past identity for any reason? I'm not sure that it does.

The loophole which FWR women (who understand DBS very well) established in the previously linked thread relates to those who have obtained a GRC. What many people are unaware of is that the DBS operates a special stream for those who identify as transgender which is available to applicants on the basis of self-id.

As you have shown, UK passport sex data is easily changed so employers with Safeguarding responsibility using DBS service may be presented with both Government ID documents and DBS certificate with incorrect sex information as well as limited disclosure of previous names for those employees/ volunteers who self-identify as transgender.

www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

Thecatonthemat · 02/04/2021 13:24

I do find it very concerning that members of the judiciary are more concerned with concealment of previous identities that the dangers this could pose to children and women.

R0wantrees · 02/04/2021 13:34

The problem of name changing in relation to crimes against women and children was specifically mentioned by Said Javid the other evening

Do you have a link to this please? It is long overdue that government recognise the serious Child Protection and Safeguarding issues of dangerous men being able to name change.

2018 Claude Knights (safeguarding expert retired after 15 years as head of Kidscape, CEO of Anti Bullying charity and previously part of Westminster safeguarding committee) on sex offenders who transition and are afforded the opportunity to change their name and hide their history as a consequence & recent case of "Christopher Noble, 32, transitioned to Christyl Knight while behind bars for keeping a stash of over 4,000 vile pictures and videos of kids as young as six months old"

“Allowing these individuals to hide a secret past is a dangerous practice.”
“Anyone who’s fuelled the vile trade in indecent images of children and therefore contributed to their sexual abuse should not be allowed to change their name.”

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3006679/paedophile-jailed-transgender-christyl-knight-christopher-nobile/

R0wantrees · 02/04/2021 13:48

Many thanks Thecatonthemat

RobinMoiraWhite · 02/04/2021 13:49

@Erkrie

How funny. Please don't think the likes of Miranda Yardley and Debbie Hayton reflect the views of more than 0.0000001% of trans folk. I feel quite sorry for them.

It's likely they feel sorry for you as well. It's a two way street.

Maybe

But given there are only a handful of 'trans folk' who think as they do, I'm happy to be with the vast majority.

Erkrie · 02/04/2021 13:51

But given there are only a handful of 'trans folk' who think as they do, I'm happy to be with the vast majority.

Sorry, do you know what every 'trans folk' thinks? I doubt that you do. The problem with being in an echo chamber. I know plenty think like you. I also know of plenty who don't.

R0wantrees · 02/04/2021 14:07

@Thecatonthemat

The problem of name changing in relation to crimes against women and children was specifically mentioned by Said Javid the other evening ( responding to the latest report) it is curious that Robin and Mccloud do not see why this might not be an issue when their attention is drawn to it. Incidentally I would have really appreciated a wife to support me in my career while childraising etc.
27th February 2021 Mail on Sunday 'Thousands of sex criminals could be working with children – after changing their names for just £15, warns former Home Secretary Sajid Javid Ex-Home Secretary Sajid Javid calls for changes to tackle child sexual abuse 900 convicted sex offenders have paid £15 to change their names by deed poll He calls for school nurse revival to make it easier for children to report abuse (extract) "Thousands of sex offenders could be working with children because they have changed their names by deed poll to escape detection, according to a hard-hitting new report by former Home Secretary Sajid Javid." (continues)

Alarmingly, the report says at least 900 convicted sex offenders – and possibly thousands – could be operating in jobs that bring them into contact with young people because they have taken the simple expedient of paying £15 to change their names by deed poll.

At no stage is an applicant required to disclose their criminal history – which the report recommends should change.

It says the current stipulation that those on the sex offenders register must tell the police if they change their names within three days of doing so ‘is essentially an honours system with the onus on the individual to keep the police up to date… over 900 offenders may have changed their names without notifying the police and are now living under the radar’

The report adds that as the 900 offenders ‘only represent data released by 16 of the 43 police forces’ then ‘it is likely then that the actual figure is far higher and thousands of registered sex offenders are off the radar.

‘The worst-case scenario outcome is not unfeasible: that some of this number have acquired fresh names and are working or living alongside children. We must locate these individuals and safeguard children they may have access to. We recommend the Home Office commissions an urgent inquiry into this matter.’ (continues)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9410099/Thousands-sex-criminals-working-children-changing-names-warns-Sajid-Javid.html

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 02/04/2021 14:14

@IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk

You appear to have no idea how the DBS system works. Your comments are wrong.

Can you elaborate please?

hi Robin, you're back.

did you have any thoughts as to how I'm wrong about the DBS system please?

What do you make of Sajid Javid's comments on this?

Abitofalark · 02/04/2021 14:14

Interesting posts from Rowantrees. That letter from the Home Office. Ugh! and humbug. It's pretty clear from their manoeuvres that the overriding aim of the administering classes is to obliterate the actual sex and make the transitioned status the only relevant one. This flows from the whole concept enshrined in the Act of 'changing' sex and the claimed 'rights' from which it stems.

Thecatonthemat · 02/04/2021 14:47

The thing about the deed poll is absolutely correct. As a social worker I came upon many of these men, and we were sometimes tipped off about abusers who had name changed ( mostly because of reports about them living with families where there were children, rather than in a working environment) why is one sort of name change a great thing and another not so much?

Ghislainedefeligonde · 02/04/2021 14:54

Hang on, they consider themselves to be a woman, so why not encourage more women into the judiciary? Women are clearly hugely under represented (to a far greater extent than transgender people) in these roles. I can’t imagine why they think there should be more transgender judges than women judges. What a strange coincidence that is Hmm

RedDeerRunning · 02/04/2021 14:56

"the second woman to hold that post" Angry

R0wantrees · 02/04/2021 14:57

Interesting to read that McCloud has ruled on deed poll matters concerning children identified as transgender.

Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 279 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE ENROLMENT OF DEEDS (NAME CHANGE) REGULATIONS 1994 and s.133(1) SENIOR COURTS ACT 1981

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

Date 12 February 2020

Before:

MASTER VICTORIA MCCLOUD

In re W, F, C and D (minors)(Name changes disclosing gender reassignment and other matters)

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/279.html

StellaAndCrow · 02/04/2021 15:01

@Thecatonthemat

The problem of name changing in relation to crimes against women and children was specifically mentioned by Said Javid the other evening ( responding to the latest report) it is curious that Robin and Mccloud do not see why this might not be an issue when their attention is drawn to it. Incidentally I would have really appreciated a wife to support me in my career while childraising etc.
Yes absolutely - McCloud had a wife to do the wifework while developing their career, and had male privilege while applying for their place at the bar. And is still with their wife - I hope that she is OK.
StellaAndCrow · 02/04/2021 15:04

@Ghislainedefeligonde

Hang on, they consider themselves to be a woman, so why not encourage more women into the judiciary? Women are clearly hugely under represented (to a far greater extent than transgender people) in these roles. I can’t imagine why they think there should be more transgender judges than women judges. What a strange coincidence that is Hmm
This is what I thought when I read the article. Women are HUGELY under represented in the judiciary, but despite identifying as a woman, McCloud doesn't seem to be arguing for more women to become judges.
R0wantrees · 02/04/2021 15:07

Also that McCloud is part of the Equal Treatment Bench Book committee, HM Judiciary

www.law.ox.ac.uk/people/victoria-mccloud

Law Society Gazette
'Warning over transgender guidance to judges'
By Melanie Newman24 February 2020
(extract)
Guidance for judges on transgender issues has come under fire from solicitors in the wake of controversial court rulings. Feminist lawyers say the guidance, in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, fails to highlight conflicts between transgender and women’s rights.

The Bench Book advises that transgender defendants should be addressed by the pronouns of their choice and that ‘self-definition is the most important criteria’ (sic). At least one victim of violence by a transgender woman has been reprimanded in court for using male pronouns while describing the attack. Finding the defendant guilty, the judge refused the victim compensation, saying that when asked to refer to the defendant as ‘she’, the victim had done so with ‘bad grace’ or continued to use ‘he’.

Solicitor Harriet Wistrich, head of the Centre for Women’s Justice, has raised concerns about pronoun use in cases involving violence against women. ‘Here there is a conflict between the right of self-definition and the right of a victim, who may have been violated in the most horrendous way, to describe her material reality as she perceives it,’ she said. ‘Why is the victim’s right less important?’

The Bench Book also endorses the terms ‘cisgender’ or ‘cis’ as ‘often used to describe people whose gender identity corresponds to the sex assigned to them at birth’. The book does not mention that some women find the term ‘cis’ offensive. The Gazette understands that the term was also introduced to judges at a training session last year without any kind of warning as to its use.

Criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey of the LGB Alliance, which campaigns for the rights of same-sex attracted people, told the Gazette: ‘Judges have been led to believe that women do not mind being described as cisgender when it is regarded by many, myself included, as highly offensive. I do not have a gender and object to being redefined by men who wish to live as women. It is the most offensive power play.’" (continues)
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges/5103196.article

previous threads:
2018 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3181412-Bench-Book

2019 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3591213-Mail-article-Judges-are-ordered-to-allow-transgender-defendants-to-be-addressed-as-the-gender-of-their-choice-during-court-appearances

2020 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3829035-Twitter-trans-rights-and-the-role-of-the-police-an-extended-look-guided-by-TELI

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3831857-Warning-over-transgender-guidance-to-judges-Lae-Gazette-article

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3832621-Transgender-Guidance-for-Judges-guess-what

Thecatonthemat · 02/04/2021 15:17

You certainly have an encyclopaedic knowledge and memory RO I would love to be so administratively competent to find what is lurking in the netherlands of my memory. I can rarely find these gems again if they are not in these boards.

happydappy2 · 02/04/2021 20:00

R0wantrees that information is terrifying....

The report adds that as the 900 offenders ‘only represent data released by 16 of the 43 police forces’ then ‘it is likely then that the actual figure is far higher and thousands of registered sex offenders are off the radar.

‘The worst-case scenario outcome is not unfeasible: that some of this number have acquired fresh names and are working or living alongside children. We must locate these individuals and safeguard children they may have access to. We recommend the Home Office commissions an urgent inquiry into this matter.’

Do you know if the Home Office are doing anything about this?

OP posts:
IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 02/04/2021 20:05

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk
You appear to have no idea how the DBS system works. Your comments are wrong.

did you have any thoughts as to how I'm wrong about the DBS system please?

What do you make of Sajid Javid's comments on this?

Hi, I'm sorry to keep on about this but I genuinely had a bit of hope there when @RobinMoiraWhite said that I was wrong in worrying that the increased ease of name changing, possibly helped by Judge McC.'s input would have a negative impact on the integrity of the DBS checking system.

I am a natural worrier and would genuinely appreciate being presented with some evidence that I am worrying unnecessarily here (tbh I would totally love being presented with some proper evidence that the whole safeguarding and protections thing going down the toilet is not actually a major problem but somehow I doubt that is going to happen).

So, I've asked Robin to elaborate (and would welcome input from anyone else here).

In the absence of any such reassurance being forthcoming I will prepare myself to break it to my teenage daughters and elderly mother/mother in law that actually our society gives zero f**ks about their safety or well being and they need to set their expectations for the future.

I will order some of those red cloaks (that they wear on the Handmaiden programme cba to check) and we can all crack on with our set roles in life (which won't be safe or pleasant).

Erkrie · 02/04/2021 20:09

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk
I wouldn't hold your breath. I have never seen Robin return to back up their assertions with actual facts and evidence. It's a pattern I've noticed across many threads.

R0wantrees · 02/04/2021 20:12

‘The worst-case scenario outcome is not unfeasible: that some of this number have acquired fresh names and are working or living alongside children. We must locate these individuals and safeguard children they may have access to. We recommend the Home Office commissions an urgent inquiry into this matter.’

These 'individuals' will of course be overwhelmingly male and as well as having acquired fresh names some may also be claiming to be female or have changed their legal sex. There is no prohibition preventing a registered sex offender (or any convicted criminal) from gaining a GRC.

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 03/04/2021 11:47

There is no prohibition preventing a registered sex offender (or any convicted criminal) from gaining a GRC.

Given that a GRC appears to (unlawfully) give male people access to female single sex spaces like prisons (as confirmed in court by the lawyer representing the Ministry of Justice) this seems imprudent.

I believe that the justification given by Karen Jones for the horrific attempted rape and attack on a woman that Karen carried out was that Karen wanted to go back to prison so Karen could obtain reassignment surgery and apply for a GRC.

IMO Karen Jones is not a suitable person to be housed anywhere near vulnerable women (or given any access to female single sex spaces) especially after Karen apparently obtaining facial feminisation surgery to allow Karen to ‘pass’ better.