Paedophile couple win payout - what's going on with our justice system?

[Changemusthappen]

I saw this reported in the Telegraph yesterday, below is a link to a more detailed report in a local paper.

The two paedophiles met in prison, changed gender and then got married. They were moved to different prisons and not allowed to talk to each other, the judge thought this wasn't fair after they argued that there was unjustified interference in their private lives. These people have been awarded unspecified damages.

I want to say this is unbelievable but sadly we all know it isn't. The poor victims, I wonder what support and damages they received....

www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/national/19303658.married-women-prison-denied-contact-win-legal-fight/

People don't get a private life in prison. Why on earth would someone be allowed to stay with their partner.

That's an absolute mares' nest of a situation.... and would be whatever the identity or orientations of those involved. It sounds like the prison services' biggest concern was to do with coercive control within the relationship, and a partnership enabling or supporting offending.

Prisoners do have some rights but it does not seem odd to separate those who may be reinforcing each others behavior patterns. I thought that was routine.

I just googled and both those institutions are mens prisons.

So despite the MoJ stating the following:
the two women pose a risk to each other and the wider community, and that the risk is too great to allow face-to-face or telephone contact.
They argued that the woman who brought the claim has psychopathic traits and is controlling, while her wife is highly vulnerable with a continued sexual interest in children, meaning both pose a risk to the community and each other the judge thought that their rights to see each other were more important.
Is this another example of regulatory capture and the Bench book impact?

Both prisons mentioned in the article are prisons which exclusively house male sex offenders. It might therefore be possible to assume that the two prisoners mentioned are both biologically male.

I think that assumption is fair and reasonable @334bu

Yes they are biologically male - they changed gender then got married and are referred to as 'she' in article. I do think to the untrained eye, it isn't really clear. Imagine if Rose and Fred West had brought a similar case! Do couples really have the 'right' to be in prison together if they simply say they are the opposite sex?

I also wondered if this ruling was as a result of the Bench book.

I am increasingly annoyed at the use of 'she' or 'her' in these articles. I would like it to be clear that these are biological maies. This is feeding the 'women do it too' narrative.

Another article in the Telegraph yesterday reported 'Soaring numers of registered sex offender 'just the tip of the iceberg'. The article uses 'people' throughout. I know NAMALT however it is mainly men and this needs to be said. We need this reported and listed by biological sex.

But anyone who goes to prison has to face the high likelihood of not being with their spouse - why are they any different?

@MrsBunHat

But anyone who goes to prison has to face the high likelihood of not being with their spouse - why are they any different?

Quite Rosemary and Fred West weren’t housed together, neither were Ian Brady and Myra Hindley

Separately we really should be complaining to newspapers when incorrectly identifying the sex of offenders in articles where their sex is very relevant (which is allowed by the IPSO guidelines on transgender reporting) I have sent a complaint

every day this stuff seems crazier and crazier. wtaf?