KPSS House of Lords tomorrow

[Isthatthebestyoucando]

On Monday there is an amendment being tabled in the House of Lords to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which would stop men being held in women’s prisons.
Anyone on twitter please tweet #KeepProsonsSingleSex and #Amendment214 to show strength of feeling.

@FindTheTruth

So only Dr Kate Coleman pointed out that there IS NOT A RISK ASSESSMENT FOR RAPISTS/VIOLENT OFFENDERS WITH A GRC. and the Lib Dems peers and Shami and government official statement are wrong on this.

Who needs to be told this? Is Baron Blencathra the best placed to be sent info?

@ArabellaScott Dr Kate Coleman says a redraft is being discussed

@Redlake

Obviously that Lord Blencathra has not done his research. His view is way behind the times. A good reply from Baroness Brinton explaining the way things are done now. There is a lot of scaremongering about management of trans prisoners. Correct she says there is more to fear from other cis women prisoners than trans.

No. He has done his research and is not behind the times. Brinton only describes the part of the policy that related to prisoners who identify as transgender and who do not have GRCs. The process is entirely different for those who do have GRCs.

twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1460584135051907077

The statement that there is more to fear from women in the female estate that from prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender (whether or not they have a GRC) is not consistent with the information I have received from female former offenders and from current prisoners.

TWEETS from KPSS on the mistakes made by Baroness Brinton

Keep Prisons Single Sex
@NoXYinXXprisons
Thoughts on Baroness Brinton's speech:
"The actual facts of what is happening with TW in prisons does not match the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra."
Brinton is mistaken. 1/

She quotes from the guidance that applies to prisoners with no GRC and falsely extends this to cover prisoners with a GRC. Thus she speaks of full risk ax, transgender case boards, decisions made on an individual basis, etc. However, this is for non-GRC holder only. 2/

A male prisoner with a GRC is NOT subject to any case board ax. There is automatic allocation to gen pop of female estate regardless of risk, conviction, offending history, anatomy. This gives instant access to GRC holders and is a reason why Amendment 214 focussed on GRC. 3/

Further any risk ax of GRC holders is inadequate because the risk ax tool used for adult men convicted of sexual offences cannot be used with GRC holders, because they are now women. Even if the tool was used the day before the GRC was issued. 4/

Even if convicted of very serious sexual offences. There is no comparable risk ax tool for use with women. This is a loophole in risk ax and means that the risk ax of this cohort of prisoners is inadequate. 5/

Brinton made much of the small numbers of sexual assaults women in prison have suffered due to these policies. That is a depressingly low bar to acceptability. Further, GRC holders are recorded as women in incident reporting: any assaults this cohort commits will be hidden. 6/

Indeed, how many of the 90 sexual assaults she reports were committed by 'cis women' were committed by GRC holders? Data collection practices means the MoJ does not know and neither does she. 7/

Small numbers are again advanced as a reason to throw out Amendment 214. It's only a few, so what's the problem? Based on 2019 data & evidence from defence in R (FDJ) v SSJ we estimate up to 20 males. This is small. But it's enough for at least 1 or 2 in each women's prison.

We know from prisoner reports that the addition of a single male can have a significant negative impact on the women held on that wing. Also consider the psychological impact of knowing that at any time a male prisoner, including 1 convicted of sexual & violent offences

and/or with intact male genitalia could be transferred to your wing. These women cannot choose to leave & use facilities that remain single-sex. They are stuck.

A male with a GRC can only be removed to the male estate if that same decision would also be made for a biologically female prisoner. Firstly, we do not know of cases where this has happened. There is an overriding commitment to retaining GRC holders in the female estate &

in the general population. Making the decision equivalent between female prisoners and males with a GRC also ignores that biological sex is an important risk factor throughout the CJS: again, we are told we should ignore the importance of biological sex.

Final thought: "there are also a small number of transgender prison units." Really?? Where?? (Other than Downview, which for very many reasons is not an acceptable solution.) END

@KeepPrisonsSingleSex great job on GB news.

Kate, just watched, you were fab, thank you.

TWEETS from KPSS on Baroness Chakrabarti's comments

Keep Prisons Single Sex
@NoXYinXXprisons

And now to Chakrabarti:
Whilst I am sure that Blencathra is relieved to be viewed as a better prospect than a female white supremacist, women are not just as bad as men. Nor do they pose the same risks either by degree or in kind. The data are consistent on this. 1/

The state does indeed have a duty of care towards all prisoners, but that duty of care cannot be executed whilst we pretend that sex is not a fundamental factor in risk ax & safeguarding. 2/

She also conflates the same 2 Qs as did Pannick: how to keep vulnerable prisoners in the male estate safe; who is legitimately entitled to be housed in the female estate. Amendment 214 addressed the 2nd of those Qs, yet peers attempt to use the 1st Q as a rebuttal. 3/

NAMALT - really??? 4/

Whilst women in prison are at risk of punishment for misgendering, males with GRCs are recorded in the data as female/women and female offenders are called 'non trans women' in MoJ docs, 'debates about the lexicon' are central to the situation faced by women in prison 5/

Language matters:
“If we don’t we get a punishment”: No freedom of speech for women in prison says Dr Kate Coleman, Director of Keep Prisons Single Sex - Lesbian and Gay News

Over the summer, I had lunch with a female former offender, who had recently been released from prison. During her sentence, she had moved around the female estate and had been housed in several diffe…
lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/if-we-dont-we-get-a-punishment-no-freedom-of-speech-for-women-in-prison-says-dr-kate-coleman-director-of-keep-prisons-single-sex/

I invite her to discuss with those who run men's prisons the circumstances under which it could ever be appropriate to house a female prisoner in the general population of the male estate. END

[quote Signalbox]@KeepPrisonsSingleSex great job on GB news.[/quote]
Kate you were brilliant.

Thank you Kate excellent as always.

This is an exert from the Hansard link of Baroness Noakes' speech on her amendment 219a which challenged the inclusion of 'gender' which is ill-defined.

"I can illustrate how difficult the use of “gender” is becoming from something I discovered called nominalgender. Nominalgender means,

"a gender where the person’s gender is so much just them that no one else can even experience it. Most nominalgender people will define their gender as a mashup between other genders of a certain kind (like beegender, angelgender, etc) but it’s not a multiple gender, it is one”.^^

Who knew, my Lords? This new lexicon of gender is part of a gender identity theory. It is a controversial issue and has not hitherto found its way into legislation for very good reason. I believe that legislating for hostility towards gender would make for very uncertain law. The use of the word “gender” has moved well beyond an attempt to achieve drafting neutrality and has started to acquire a very different meaning."

The use of the word “gender” has moved well beyond an attempt to achieve drafting neutrality and has started to acquire a very different meaning.

Yes! Brilliant points.

Does anyone know what actual email address they use. I think it is @parliament.uk, but what about the name? I really want to express my thanks to some , and my shock to others.

@catzwhiskas
www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/get-in-touch-with-members/

',,,the reason so many men spoke is that so many noble Baronesses who normally sit behind her are afraid to speak on this issue. They have spoken to me privately, as have some on the Lib Dem Benches and the Cross Benches, and said, “Please raise this issue; we dare not speak out.” That is not right. It should be possible for noble Baronesses on all sides to raise this issue of women’s rights.'

Lord Blencathra

I thought that quote was quite shocking. Several of the lawmakers of the UK whose role is to debate are afraid to speak. I've heard the same said wrt MPs. How did we get here? Women are silenced at every level. It's frightening.

@ArabellaScott

',,,the reason so many men spoke is that so many noble Baronesses who normally sit behind her are afraid to speak on this issue. They have spoken to me privately, as have some on the Lib Dem Benches and the Cross Benches, and said, “Please raise this issue; we dare not speak out.” That is not right. It should be possible for noble Baronesses on all sides to raise this issue of women’s rights.'

Lord Blencathra

WOW. I wonder how many of the peers are afraid?

there needs to be some sort of amnesty.

Perhaps a way for peers who feel afraid, to make submissions anonymously? can't believe I'm saying this

I question why they are in the Lords if they can see a huge issue but are not prepared to speak out. That is the responsibility they took on when they accepted their seat. Though equally I wouldn't want one side to be turning down seats either.

Lord Wasserman said just this, on one of Baroness. Nicholson's webinars, but about the PCCs (police & crime commissioners)
He said that PCCs with children caught up in this {insert banned word} will not speak out, as their children would be upset.

(Sorry paraphrasing, can't remember the exact words)

Thanks KPSS

It is very useful to have established in Hansard that even female MPs and female members of the HoL have been successfully intimidated into not using their voice in a democratic way as they normally would. This demonstrates that the behaviour of this political lobby is affecting democracy and impartiality, is intended to do so because this aids and enables the lobby's agenda, and therefore the HoC and HoL has a very serious problem in dealing with this political lobby. It cannot now be heard like any other; it has to be managed and set in the context it has intentionally chosen to create .

Conflict of interest is also a thing; where political diversity or political tolerance has become untenable for someone because:

• they have a personal conflict of interest such as a child at home who is highly committed to a partisan view

• they themselves have a personal stake in the matter (looking rather hard at the ex Speaker chap)

They should act as all people in political positions of responsibility should act when there is a conflict of interest. Declare it and step aside while that matter is discussed.

The govt are going to have to get a grip on this and weather the tantrums, because fair behaviour, following policy, showing impartiality, doing basically as they should have done from the start by their own procedures, will be regarded as hate. Because it works against this lobby's success, which tells you a great deal really. But this is what happens when you are so bloody foolish and lazy in your working role as to have let this happen in the first place.

This demonstrates that the behaviour of this political lobby is affecting democracy and impartiality, is intended to do so

good post Artichoke.

Yes, Artichoke, exactly.

I think we need some kind of sort of pre-debate where someone asks WHY peers of the realm and elected ministers are afraid to speak on this issue.

What are they afraid of? Why are they afraid? Are their fears justified? If so, how can they be addressed?

Surely there should be no issues on which women (it is, mystifyingly, women who appear to be most affected) are effectively excluded from public debate?

In 2021, in the UK, female politicians are rendered silent. How and why?

Or put it another way, are there certain issues on which women are effectively forbidden to speak?

@ArabellaScott

Yes, Artichoke, exactly.

I think we need some kind of sort of pre-debate where someone asks WHY peers of the realm and elected ministers are afraid to speak on this issue.

What are they afraid of? Why are they afraid? Are their fears justified? If so, how can they be addressed?

Surely there should be no issues on which women (it is, mystifyingly, women who appear to be most affected) are effectively excluded from public debate?

In 2021, in the UK, female politicians are rendered silent. How and why?

Yep.

Surely there should be no issues on which women (it is, mystifyingly, women who appear to be most affected) are effectively excluded from public debate?

And then lets sort out which women, because let's be honest it's exclusively females that this is effecting. Which is discrimination based on sex. And oooh look, that's the Equality Act.

And this demonstrates that arguing that sex isn't a thing, no one knows what sex anyone is, that sex is complicated, is downright silly in the HoC/HoL. Because here it is. Sex based thinking, two sexes, and this is all about one consistently losing to the other which is why single sex facilities were created in the first place.

It's coming towards the HoC and the HoL like an express train: they are going to have to name the elephant in the room and stake a position. Does each member believe that male people are by biological accident humans of great priority and importance than female ones? Do they believe that female rights and access and other things should be subordinated to male ones in law?

We've gone full circle, it's taken what, a century? We're back to discussing whether females have souls.