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

@OvaHere

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Not sure why this was deleted. Are we not allowed to discuss the ways in which law and policy is detrimental to women or how it could work better for us?

Honestly, @OvaHere, I have no idea how the rules are applied. I got one as, though unidentifiable, I used the biologically correct pronoun of an unidentifiable trans person related to me in a way I did not specify. I was making the point that the families can be collateral damage in this, and the deletion just rammed home for me that no, nobody gives a shit about the families.

Just as the MoJ doesn't give a shit about women, but prioritises the rights of a groups of male-bodied people with known high rates of sexual offending* over the safety of natal women.

• As a PP said, it might be that the increased offending rate is due to male sex offenders declaring themselves to be trans women to get access to the female estate, rather than to increased rates of sexual offending amongst trans women. Feel I have to say that before someone jumps down my throat/ reports my comment. What a great way to have to carry out a public debate!

or sex offenders are falsely claiming to be transgender

And of course this is the TRAs’ argument, yet at the same time any policy that isn’t self-ID is literal violence and fascist? hmm

Yes, it worth reminding everyone out that the Stonewall mantra is Acceptance Without Exception. Anyone who claims they are trans is trans, that's it, no debate.

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman

Honestly, *@OvaHere*, I have no idea how the rules are applied. I got one as, though unidentifiable, I used the biologically correct pronoun of an unidentifiable trans person related to me in a way I did not specify. I was making the point that the families can be collateral damage in this, and the deletion just rammed home for me that no, nobody gives a shit about the families.

Just as the MoJ doesn't give a shit about women, but prioritises the rights of a groups of male-bodied people with known high rates of sexual offending* over the safety of natal women.

• As a PP said, it might be that the increased offending rate is due to male sex offenders declaring themselves to be trans women to get access to the female estate, rather than to increased rates of sexual offending amongst trans women. Feel I have to say that before someone jumps down my throat/ reports my comment. What a great way to have to carry out a public debate!

Well based on the deletions I've had on this thread we can't plainly talk about how the GRA was in conflict with women's rights and led to the situation we have with prisons today. We also can't make any analysis of commonalties some sex offenders share that are well recognised by the professionals who work with sex offenders.

Last week, Alex Chalk confirmed in response to a PQ by Kenny MacAskill that the MoJ are in the early stages of reviewing the policy framework in respect of transgender prisoners. This is welcome. As the judgement stated at paragraph 72: It is necessary to be clear about what the court is, and is not, called upon to decide… it is a challenge to the lawful not the desirability of the policies. I am really hopeful (because I'd bloody well cry if not) because of this and.....

The judgement has thrown up so much stuff (which I would guess the judges intended) that press coverage will cause yet more outrage and there's already a lot. This stuff is toxic tp TRA's but perhaps they haven't realised it yet, after all transwomen are all nice and never go to prison and are never violent.

When you write to your MP lay the blame firmly at the governments feet. Their lack of safeguarding for women for years has put us in this position and we are fighting back

On the GRC piece, I believe the original estimate of the number that would be issued still holds I think, at around 5000 people.

They are also the group who had to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and includes more people I imagine who have had full surgery.

Quite a these people are not popular with the more recent trans activism.

Given the nature and small numbers at population level I personally would be wary of assuming that this cohort is likely to be skewing the data around this TBH.

In the Guardian:

The court heard that in 2019, there were 163 transgender prisoners in England and Wales, 81 of whom had been convicted of one or more sexual offences. Of the 81, 34 were held in women’s prisons.

Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 97 sexual assaults were recorded in women’s prisons, of which seven appeared to be committed by transgender prisoners without a GRC. It is not known whether any were committed by transgender women with a GRC.

Shocking stuff.

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge

The Guardian's reporting on it and it seems they're not shying away from the sexual offending aspect.
I imagine a certain little fella over there will be petulantly stomping his feet before the evening is out.
www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge

NotTerfNorCis got there before me!

The Daily Mail on line has picked this up. Have to say that whilst no fan of the DM they have helped massively to point sunlight in the right direction.

BBC write up

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57692993

I cannot see how this is civilised.

There are women in jail now with a trans woman who had to be moved multiple times for having sexual "relationships" with the other inmates. That person has a conviction of a particularly nasty murder where a man was tortured for days by a group of men, plus the TW.

AFAIK the TW has not been accused of a sexual offence by the other prisoners. Do't suppose I would either, Paris Green is dangerous, why would you want to cause trouble?

It's state sanctioned rape.

DM write up is here:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9750105/amp/High-Court-rules-transgender-women-female-prisons.html

Crumbs of comfort but that BBC write up is pretty fair. I am pleasantly surprised.

I think actually it would be a brave journalist who tried to spin this as 'good news'. Which is how it should be.

BBC report very interesting.

The picture they chose.
The stats about disproportionate convictions for sex offending.
The point that it's not known about non GRC.

I do not like the phrase physical transformation at all. It sounds a bit magical/ total. Any surgery should be better.

All in all a massive about face for the BBC.

Anyone reading that will be ???!!

@Avocadowoman

Crumbs of comfort but that BBC write up is pretty fair. I am pleasantly surprised.

I think actually it would be a brave journalist who tried to spin this as 'good news'. Which is how it should be.

I recall that Richard Garside has been on the BBC to discuss similar items before now - it will be interesting to see if he's invited again.

www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/news/centres-director-richard-garside-bbc

I very much liked how he acknowledged that he'd had substantial criticism for his advocacy but was aware of how much worse it is for women who comment on such matters.

That Daily Mail article isn't very good. I'm not convinced whoever wrote it actually read the judgement.

This from the BBC article is incorrect:

In a judgement handed down via email, Lord Justice Holroyd accepted the statistical evidence showed proportion of trans prisoners convicted of sexual offences was "substantially higher" than for non-transgender men and women prisoners

But he said this specific claim was a "misuse of the statistics, which... are so low in number, and so lacking in detail, that they are an unsafe basis for general conclusions".

The judge did not dispute that the statistical evidence showed proportion of trans prisoners convicted of sexual offences was "substantially higher" than for non-transgender men and women prisoners.

What they said was a "misuse of the statistics" was to extrapolate from that to say that this meant that a trans woman was 5-6 times more likely to sexually assault another female prisoner.

These aren't the same thing, because one refers to a historic fact (they have a conviction for a sexual offence) whilst the other refers to a possible future act that hasn't happened yet (sexually assaulting someone else). Those two things are distinct and the judge is correct to call attention to that. However, the BBC article has missed the point here.

It might be they want to get a piece out there first Ovahere. Lets hope it gets amended. The real journalists might be in the pub

Sorry for the tangent but the DM article had a link to an article from May about a case I had not about before:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9542845/amp/Transgender-paedophile-attacked-prison-guard-razors-removed.html?ico=amp_articleRelated_with_images

Child rapist imprisoned, starts to identify as female and says prison life affecting him, eg not allowed a razor to shave, judge lets him out due to her difficult personal circumstances!

That's what I asked further up the thread. My take on the situation is that MoJ are both operating a sex self-ID policy in prisons (thanks Stonewall!), AND choosing not to apply the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act (thanks Stonewall again!).

In a way, that makes me think about the case that formed the basis for the concept of intersectionality, law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/413/142/1660699/

Not as bad as some are making out. This is a loss but not a brush-off, if you see what I mean.

The judges refused to strike down the policy in its entirety but are leaving the door open (complete with a beckoning hand and a come-hither look) for challenges to individual cases where the policies are not followed to the letter and the risk assessment is not robust. Plus HMPPS is told to jolly well collect data on trans prisoners properly.

So, battle lost, outcome of war remains to be seen.

'Lord Justice Holroyde continued: 'They can, in my view, be expected to be astute to detect any case of a male prisoner who, for sinister reasons, is merely pretending to wish to live in the female gender.''

Is Layla Moran doing the checks?

How on earth are they supposed to tell?

The other point that the judge makes which worries me is their statement that anyone who is transgender CANNOT be a sex offender against women. How does that work?!

The other point that the judge makes which worries me is their statement that anyone who is transgender CANNOT be a sex offender against women. How does that work?!

So stupid and dangerous to pretend ANY group of people are harmless.