Prisons Judicial Review: Judgement

[KeepPrisonsSingleSex]

It's finally here...
The judgement in the prisons judicial review R (FDJ) v SSJ
will be handed down by email at 10.30 am today...

Here is a reminder of what it was about:

www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/judicial-review-campaign-update

@FFSFFSFFS

The 97 other assualts might all have been trans women with GRC - they weren't necessarily all by actual women. They don't record the data when its a sexual assault by a transgender woman with a GRC.

Exactly what I was going to say. The 'data' is meaningless as a transwoman with a GRC (who can still of course have all the male anatomy born with) counts as 'other woman' and is not recorded in any way.

You are responsible for the rape and sexual assault of women who were locked in with these animals.

Shame on you.

I don't think they know what shame is.

They knew what the outcome would be and they still allowed it to happen. People still defend it. They sleep easy at night because it's only women* being raped/assaulted and traumatised for the rest of their lives.

*And no one has any trouble identifying women when choosing the ones it's okay to put in danger, do they? Funny that )

I wish I believed in heaven and hell, because I'd take comfort knowing there's a special place reserved down there, burning for the absolute fuckers that have let this happen

I thought that. Although the JR failed, it does bring sunlight to the abuses that have happened, that the MOJ doesn't collect enough data and that women's rights must be balanced with trans rights. Sunlight that there are clashes between the two. The definition of sex and gender was not twaw in the ruling either. Some positives.

That isn't what it says. The policy expressly requires transgender women who pose a danger to other prisoners to be strictly separated. It's a matter of risk assessment

So any sex-offending male prisoners would automatically be strictly separated then? Even if they decide to change their name and do their porridge in “girl-mode”?

Skim reading that JR it seems to me to be saying 'this is crap and we know it's crap but this is how the law stands'.

So the law must change.

Hopefully it will make people realise what a shitshow the GRA is.

@MidsomerMurmurs

That isn't what it says. The policy expressly requires transgender women who pose a danger to other prisoners to be strictly separated. It's a matter of risk assessment

So any sex-offending male prisoners would automatically be strictly separated then? Even if they decide to change their name and do their porridge in “girl-mode”?

Only after a review. On immediate admission to prison any male with or without a GRC who says they are a woman is to be admitting to the female estate. Risk assessments are not carried out prior to admission.

The policy expressly requires transgender women who pose a danger to other prisoners to be strictly separated. It's a matter of risk assessment

Didn't this come up in court? I'm sure it said they were strictly monitored around the clock. Yet somehow a female inmate was still sexually assaulted?

I think what makes me sickest is the shits who are going to slither in to defend this. Despicable human beings.

That too, will bring sunlight to people watching who aren't au fait with what's going on. I imagine there will be crowing from the usual suspects, not just defending.

I have read paragraph 86 several times , what it essentially says is

1. the unconditional introduction of transgender prisoners into the general population of the women’s estate carries a statistically higher risk of sexual assault upon non transsexual prisoners

2. the risk can be managed

3. therefore they ( judges) are not persuaded that the policies have a disproportionally prejudicial effect on non transgender female prisoners as compared with non transgender male prisoners.

So if you are a woman in a woman’s prison , despite the statistically greater risk of sexual assault you will be just as safe from the violent predatory rapist with a previous documented history of violent attacks on women who has been housed in the women’s estate after declaring that they are a transwomen , as a man in a male prison would be , because the overworked, underpaid prison officers will have your back at all times.

Yes,dear, you are just as safe as any man living next to a male rapist who hates and abuses women would be.

What absolute fucking rubbish. Vulnerable women’s safety from predatory violent rapists should not be predicated by the good intentions of a separate unit . Vulnerable women’s safety from predatory violent rapists should be guaranteed by the simple expedient of not housing violent predatory rapists in women’s prisons.

[Rather shocking admission in the report, read it, can’t find it now, during covid, women prisoners who wished to shield for health reasons were put, guess where? In the violent transwomen rapists unit. Covid or assault , you choose. ]

fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FDJ-Press-Release-Final.pdf

Here is Nic's press release

I have only scanned it however with all these cases it seems to be 'it's a sensitive area'. It really isn't. Men should not be in womens spaces, we need and entitled to single sex spaces.

This case was about transgender women who have committed sexual offences not being in the womens estate. No transgender women should be in the female estate because their sex is male. The MoJ need to setup separate sections for the prisoners however given that they don't even know how many trans women they have (and presumably it is 'too sensitive' to collect that data') this doesn't sound like it's going to be policy anytime soon. Am I right in saying that 'E' wing refers to this?

The summary of this case shows just how bad things really are. I'm disgusted.

The judgment also finally puts to bed the transactivist claim that "Trans rights and female rights are never in conflict".

The court was clear that the decision to house male prisoners who identify as women in female prisons DOES undermine the rights of female prisoners /3

Sorry, meant to add, isn’t it the first rule of safeguarding that you imagine the worst possible outcome and use that to establish your safeguarding criteria.

Talking about risk management is absolute bullshit. The most effective, easiest and cheapest risk management is one that's existed since the inception of prisons. House all males and females separately by biological sex regardless of whatever other characteristics they may have.

Arses.

@highame

I've just read the judgement and a bit speedily, but although the claim itself is lost, there are some things in there that do not mean 'all is lost'. There is a lot of emphasis on reiterating the process and procedures and it may be that these have not been followed properly. There is also a requirement for proper figures to be kept.

It also looks as though the judgement says everyone's safety must be taken into account. In the case of sexual assualt and rape cases, these have to be held in a seperate wing (E) I think, which is in the women's estate but there are no links to the women.

Someone will put me right but just for the minute I'm not thinking all is lost though I think dials media stuff is spot on. This should get some traction

I've read it too and agree. I think it's the wrong outcome, but there's quite a lot in the judgement which is useful. Its common sense stuff that we know but has not been recognised by the other side in these discussions.The judges accept that

• there is a conflict of rights which has to be balanced
• article 3 is engaged
• there's a genuine potential psycholoogical impact on some women being in proximity to male people
• the record keeping has been crap and should be done better
• it's good to have the available stats set out, tho the the number with a grc is thought to be small.

They think the policy can manage all these things if applied properly.

They are kean on the expertise of the case boards, and agree that in individual cases rights could be breached, but the overall policy doesn't discriminate unlawfully. This is a bit like what other judges have been saying. Experts not courts should be making these decisions. Individual breaches have to be prosecuted.

They also say trans womem with a grc have the right to be treated as their new gender, and that should be the starting point, with exclusions made on an individual basis.

It does suggest the grc is material, and not just admin that is no one else's business.

In the case of sexual assualt and rape cases, these have to be held in a seperate wing (E) I think, which is in the women's estate but there are no links to the women.
I think there are links to thd women. They have supervised association with women during the day. That's a shocking bit if the policy. The prisoner who brought the case said she was sexually assaulted this way.

“Whilst we are disappointed with today’s judgment, we welcome this clarification in the law. The judgment is clear – Policy makers must therefore have due regard to the impact of these policies on non-transgender women. It is our client’s bravery, in bringing this important and sensitive challenge, which has made this possible.

Fingers crossed that MOJ will have a good hard look at what they're doing

Why do they talk about transgender women? I didn't think there was such a term in law? I thought in law such a person was referred to as a transsexual? Isn't transsexual the legal term.

Saying transgender women is misleading. A transgender woman, by definition, must be a male.

I really thought this would be the end of it.
It's an example of how captured and entwined in law gender ideology has become.

2) the risk can be managed

What's the betting that, as with everything else involving transwomen, what will be "managed" is not the behaviour of the transwomen themselves, but the behaviour of the natal women. As with young girls needing to "educate themselves" over their discomfort at the presence of a penis in their locker room, I have not doubts that prison services (fully paid up members of the rainbow flag), not wishing to incur the wrath of TRAs, will put any female prisoner complaining of harassment into isolation, or otherwise punish her or require her to change her attitude. Well, I suppose it's no different to women worldwide having to bear the burden of responsibility of not being raped, rather than men baring the responsibility of not raping.

Men really do hate women, don't they. That's all it comes down to. Madonnas and whores. Women in prison deserve it, they stopped being worthy of protection the minute they were convicted. Or fill in the gap - wore a short skirt, got drunk, walked home alone at night, left her husband, failed to get self defence lessons, had an opinion, got a top job, out-performed a man, blah blah fucking blah.

@Manderleyagain

In the case of sexual assualt and rape cases, these have to be held in a seperate wing (E) I think, which is in the women's estate but there are no links to the women. I think there are links to thd women. They have supervised association with women during the day. That's a shocking bit if the policy. The prisoner who brought the case said she was sexually assaulted this way.

Yes, the prisoners held in a separate wing are allowed to socialise and exercise with women in the main prison.

@Manderleyagain

In the case of sexual assualt and rape cases, these have to be held in a seperate wing (E) I think, which is in the women's estate but there are no links to the women. I think there are links to thd women. They have supervised association with women during the day. That's a shocking bit if the policy. The prisoner who brought the case said she was sexually assaulted this way.

Wasn't it quoted somewhere that association with women was essential to their gender validation? The assumption being that it's fine for unwilling and un-consenting women to form part of someone's treatment plan.

@Datun

Why do they talk about transgender women? I didn't think there was such a term in law? I thought in law such a person was referred to as a transsexual? Isn't transsexual the legal term.

Saying transgender women is misleading. A transgender woman, by definition, must be a male.

I also wish they wouldn't talk in terms of non-transgender women. We don't need that clarifier, we are just women. It's another dehumanising form of non-man.