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.

Do they believe that female rights and access and other things should be subordinated to male ones in law?

It will come down to this, yes. It's a pretty basic question.

I am astonished that the answer from some people seems to be 'yes'.

Times article:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0f6562b4-47b2-11ec-aa43-5cc5157b09b9?shareToken=21999f83b9e006ed070e3495065bde75

Another House of Lords amendment to replace 'gender' with 'sex' happened again yesterday (amendment 221ZA to the PCSC bill concerning the age of criminal responsibility)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4404165-Lord-Sandhurst-QC-Sex-not-gender

Baroness Chakrabati has responded !!! to the backlash after Monday (when amendment 214 was tabled in the House of Lords to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - i.e. this thread).

"What I tried to suggest, and which Twitter does not reflect, is that hostility can be towards people in broader categories than those protected under the Equality Act. I would not want someone to be subjected to violent hostility, even on grounds that are not currently in the Equality Act, because they were non-binary or whatever."

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2021-11-17/debates/09B158C3-306E-4A50-AD30-7FDAF377FD89/PoliceCrimeSentencingAndCourtsBill

What she spectacularly misses, is that this amendment wasn't about a broad category of people (NAMALT, NATWALT) but a specific small category of people (sex offenders, rapists). As Dr Kate Coleman said Amendment 214 focussed on GRC holders as there is no risk assessment for GRC holders.

And as PP said 'assessment' should not apply to rapist who's proven that they are a danger, and Shami, NO it's not "violent hostility" to ban them from women's prison

And as PP said 'assessment' should not apply to rapist who's proven that they are a danger, and Shami, NO it's not "violent hostility" to ban them from women's prison

She doesn't appear to have grasped the issue at all.

She was in here once - I found her to be quite difficult and dodging the issues out to her. I was less than impressed.

even on grounds that are not currently in the Equality Act, because they were non-binary or whatever.

At least, unlike most TRAs she realises that.

hostility can be towards people in broader categories than those protected under the Equality Act. I would not want someone to be subjected to violent hostility, even on grounds that are not currently in the Equality Act, because they were non-binary

Oh, Shami sinned by omitting the non-binaries. I'm sure she's been suitably chastised.

She'll stand up for absolutely anybody. Except women.

More amendments in House of Lords today
parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/85093260-1305-4215-8109-ed6f679bf0e6

Is that amendment 292? I think they are quite far behind at the moment. Will keep an eye out for it.

Does anyone know what time the recording of sex-based crime data was discussed?

I'm skimming hansard just now ...

column 713, here, will that get you to it?

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2021-11-22/debates/D4B6A6F3-A165-40EA-9485-BBDAADA7B42A/PoliceCrimeSentencingAndCourtsBill

about 11.20pm ish as far as I can see

amendment was withdrawn

Lord Wasserman:

'I recognise very much the problems of collecting this information, which is why I went out of my way to speak at some length about the Home Office counting rules. I happened to be involved with their development when I was at the Home Office. They are very much based on consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, experts, think tanks, academics and so on. As I said, these rules ensure that the collection arrangements are easily amended in the light of practical experience on the ground. I have no doubt that any debate about the collection of such information will get careful consideration by the experts at the Home Office who run the counting rules, by the police, and others.

I still think that it is important to have national criminal information. One of the weaknesses of our system, as we said in an earlier debate on the Bill, is that we have 43 separate forces with 43 chief constables, each deciding how they will collect and maintain crime statistics. This is not the best way to do it. Some noble Lords will no doubt suggest a single police force, as in Scotland. That is not such a good idea, but there is another way of doing it—by Parliament setting clear rules at high level, and the experts then deciding how best to collect the information sensitively, with due respect to human rights and to people’s deepest feelings, ensuring that they take the population with them. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 292G withdrawn.
'

is he actually saying the only way to collect 'sex' data is in a single police force?

There are also a number of legal concerns arising from the amendment. It is unclear why the Government would need to mandate the uniform recording of this information regarding both alleged victims and perpetrators for all offences, and how this would be considered both necessary and proportionate for operational purposes. Accordingly, it could amount to an unlawful interference in someone’s right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The requirement might also breach Article 14 on the basis that it amounted to discrimination where transgender individuals are concerned. It is not clear, due to the scope of the amendment, that such a requirement could be lawfully justified.

Surely any recording of information about someone could be constructed as an "interference in someone's right to respect for their private and family life"? I mean, why not just stop recording any data at all?

Really really really hacked off that this amendment has been withdrawn.

Recording the SEX of offenders, or anyone, is not 'complicated'.

Who persuaded him to drop his sensible amendment?

Why was he so easily persuaded?

So many questions

I wonder how this relates to official statistics.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There are also a number of legal concerns arising from the amendment. It is unclear why the Government would need to mandate the uniform recording of this information regarding both alleged victims and perpetrators for all offences, and how this would be considered both necessary and proportionate for operational purposes. Accordingly, it could amount to an unlawful interference in someone’s right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The requirement might also breach Article 14 on the basis that it amounted to discrimination where transgender individuals are concerned. It is not clear, due to the scope of the amendment, that such a requirement could be lawfully justified.

Surely any recording of information about someone could be constructed as an "interference in someone's right to respect for their private and family life"? I mean, why not just stop recording any data at all?

That sounds rather similar to the 'advice' EHRC gave for the census that Woman's Place got a QC opinion to show it was wrong and which they have since backtracked from. But if it is unclear why they should record sex then what possible reason can there be for recording gender?

@oldwomanwhoruns

Really really really hacked off that this amendment has been withdrawn.

Recording the SEX of offenders, or anyone, is not 'complicated'.

Who persuaded him to drop his sensible amendment?

Why was he so easily persuaded?

So many questions

I do wonder if the fact that it was discussed at past 11 pm, at the end of what was probably another long marathon day, means that peers had less energy to even discuss it. But yes, very disappointing.

He had to withdraw his amendment at this stage (Committee) or, if he'd lost the vote (which he would've done, with government and opposition voting against) then that would show the "will of the House" and he wouldn't be able to bring it back at the next stage (Report) - ie withdrawing the amendment keeps it alive...