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.

Isn't Baroness Ruth Hunt, formerly of Stonewall, in the House of Lords now?

Yes unfortunately she is and probably spreading her dubious views there, however we have the wonderful Baroness and others.

I'm awful with the names, can someone make a list for the thank you letters please?

😎

@Datun

Back to the drawing board, it looks like.

A third space is obviously the correct solution. I'd like to hear why that is not acceptable.

As keep prisons single sex have said, this is just stage one.

Interesting that the last gentleman who spoke said they have never discussed this before!! Strewth.

The EHRC head (Baroness Faulkner?) said what I think amounts to - 3rd space. I'll need to go back once Hansard is up, for the exact words, but I'm sure she said something along those lines.

This might be helpful for names -
mobile.twitter.com/ShahrarAli/status/1460368140454567938

@Isthatthebestyoucando

I'm awful with the names, can someone make a list for the thank you letters please?

Lord Blencathra

Lord Maurice Morrow

Baroness Catherine Meyer

Baroness Claire Fox

Lord Patrick Cormack

Lord Philip Hunt

(Hope I haven't forgot any)

[quote Isthatthebestyoucando][/quote]
She's right on every point.

But it's her utter raging disbelief that anyone could be so inhumane as to try and force incarcerated women to be housed with rapists that stands out.

We all have it. But sometimes, the situation is so ludicrous, so misogynistic, so palpably male centric that one wonders if one is missing something.

The incredulity makes one do a double take. Have I got this right? Am I missing a clause, a caveat, anything??? Helloooo?

And there's Posie, no you haven't missed anything, it IS that fucking disgusting.

Get mad.

Get mad and get writing.

Something I've not seen before in the HoL: A Lord is interrupted by another Lord whilst they are speaking, to correct what they said. Baroness Fox interrupted Lord Paddick. Will wait for Hansard but he was implying that the proposed Ammendment 214 was put forward by those who don't understand Trans people. And Baroness Fox interrupted to say many trans people don't agree with putting rapists in womens prison and gender critics DO understand trans people

members.parliament.uk/members/Lords you can find individual Lords details here and contact them.
This isn't even in the news this morning. Also no TRAs have been responding on twitter as it draws attention to the issue.

I don't think any bishops spoke. I wonder why.

Yet again that baffling pov that if people would just understand trans people properly they would stop all this silly caring about females!

a) this prioritises males as intrinsically more valuable and human than females. It's appallingly and unjustifiably sexist and demonstrates in a nutshell that sex absolutely does exist, proponents of this political view know it perfectly well and are using it as the basis for their thinking, and that makes a straight nonsense of 'these male people are women so should be in women's prisons'. No. If this political thinking saw them as actual women it would not care a toss about them or their needs.

b) competent adults are perfectly capable of caring about more than one thing at a time; it is not a case of either or. The answer is solutions that work for both groups if this is a situation of 'we must act because we care' as opposed to 'this is all about enforcing male people in women's spaces against all logic and reason and women losing rights and being subordinated hee hee'.

c) If it is not the case that any other solution is acceptable to this political view than women must have their needs and rights subordinated and the males in the situation take absolute priority, then this states a belief that women's rights are fundamentally incompatible with the rights of these TW prisoners.

d) This means that these two groups must have their needs met separately and not as one group. Because otherwise we're subordinating women in law, via sex based thinking on the grounds of them being biologically female and biological males being superior and having entitlement to female bodies whether or not those females consent or whether or not it is in the females' best interests.

e) This is beyond batshit and Gilead starts here.

So what is it?

@Timefortea4

I don't think any bishops spoke. I wonder why.

I hope that's not because of misogyny or homophobia lingering in the C of E . I know Welby is an Evangelical but I think the bishops are free to speak their minds?

We have uploaded the whole debate to our YouTube channel for anyone who missed it or would like to watch/listen again.
Here is a (draft) list of who spoke and when (yet to be double-checked but should give you pointers if you want to get to a particular speaker).

21.04 Blencathra
21.16 Brinton
21.23 Morrow
21.28 Meyer
21.35 Pannick
21.37 Fox
21.44 Cormack
21.49 Hunt
21.52 Chakrabarti (with interventions from Meyer and Fox)
22.02 Hunt
22.05 Falkner (Chair of EHRC)
22.11 Butler-Sloss
22.13 Paddick (with interventions from Fox)
22.25 Cormack
22.26 Falconer
22.29 Wolfson (on behalf of govt)
22.38 Blencathra

Amendment 219 debate was also worth watching later on, with a brilliant speech from Baroness Noakes. Going to upload that debate this morning; it was a late night!

twitter.com/CforWomenUK/status/1460536395987095554?s=20

Thank you @ConservativesForWomen

(and now I know that the interrupting is called an 'intervention')

Thanks for the youtube. When will the Hansard thingy be readable? A transcription will be very useful. I am particularly keen to read some of the things said in black and white. Because I found them pretty staggering to hear and wasn't sure if I had heard right.

@ArabellaScott

Thanks for the youtube. When will the Hansard thingy be readable? A transcription will be very useful. I am particularly keen to read some of the things said in black and white. Because I found them pretty staggering to hear and wasn't sure if I had heard right.

Should be available today; will link as soon as it is available.

By the way, Lord Hunt has an oral question in the Lords this afternoon on Professor Kathleen Stock and we expect some good speakers though they will only have ten minutes between them. On about 2.45pm or thereabouts.

Hansard is already up. It's published on the next working day.

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-11-15/debates/DCFDDC1A-7C07-4A4E-BD6B-56C1E91D9C64/PoliceCrimeSentencingAndCourtsBill

Oh, wow, that was quick! Thanks Necessary. They must work through the night.

[quote NecessaryScene]Hansard is already up. It's published on the next working day.

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-11-15/debates/DCFDDC1A-7C07-4A4E-BD6B-56C1E91D9C64/PoliceCrimeSentencingAndCourtsBill[/quote]
Thanks! Just checked and saw it was up.

Good grief, some truly stupid reasons were advanced for not amending this policy.

The suffering and needs of TW does not justify causing suffering and additional needs and challenges to female prisoners. There are ways to meet TW prisoner needs; putting them with females is not the one and only option. It's just the preferred one of the TW.

As to the whole 'calling these TW convicted sex offenders potentially sexually dangerous is like in the 80s calling me as a gay man a risk to children' -

For pete's sake man. If you were in prison convicted of multiple sex offences against children then yes you would be obviously a clear and serious danger to children. Likewise a serious sex offender convicted of multiple serious attacks against women is an obvious clear and serious danger to women! How that offender identifies makes absolutely no difference!

Bloody gormless.

Thank you for all your work on this KPSS. Glad to hear you mentioned at least twice by the noble lords and ladies. I do worry that the whole GRC / cosmetic surgery or not , is willfully being misunderstood by many. But brilliant to actually hear this issue actually being raised and discussed, though I really don’t understand why it is so complex to say that biological women should have a right to protection from biological men. Third spaces is the only way to go . And men do not become women. Disappointing.

The suffering and needs of TW does not justify causing suffering and additional needs and challenges to female prisoners. There are ways to meet TW prisoner needs; putting them with females is not the one and only option. It's just the preferred one of the TW.

I would say that the options don’t need to be limited to a male prison or a female prison.

By the way, Lord Hunt has an oral question in the Lords this afternoon on Professor Kathleen Stock and we expect some good speakers though they will only have ten minutes between them. On about 2.45pm or thereabouts.

Thank you!