MoS - police strip search guidance “quietly brought in” last December

[QuetzalTerfLus]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10703327/Women-strip-searched-trans-officers-born-male-say-police.html

Unbelievable! (and yet sadly not surprising)

The reputation of the police is bad enough right now without this horror.

If a prisoner is thought or known to be transgender or intersex prior to a search
being carried out, then they should be searched according to the gender they
present and live their lives as. This can be ascertained by asking them.
Police officers and trained PCSO staff should treat the person according to
their preference and must not ask the person whether they have a gender
recognition certificate.
12.6.6 If a prisoner is unwilling to provide this information the Custody Supervisor
must determine the predominant gender in which the person lives their life.
This is likely to be indicated by their name, title or gender on their main identity
documentation such as their drivers’ license, bank cards, Gender Recognition
Certificate, etc. If they appear to live predominantly as a woman, they should
be treated as a woman. If they appear to live predominantly as a man, they
should be treated as a man.
12.6.7 Once the prisoner’s gender has been established, normal search procedures
will apply and the prisoner will be searched by staff of that gender. If staff are
not comfortable to carry out the search, then the Custody Supervisor should
be informed.
12.6.8 It should be borne in mind that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 creates a
criminal offence for anyone in an official capacity, such as a police officer or
police staff, acquiring the protected information relating to a persons’
transgender identity and thereafter disclosing it to a third party without the
transsexual person’s consent.

From Police Scotland document on conduct of searches.

Not sure if a female officer declining to search and then referring suspect to a third party,the Custody Officer, would constitute breaching the law, if suspect they refuse to search has a GRC

Linking the two aspects together - the Child Q case and this - we could easily see school staff being arrested.

Can you imagine? Police officers turn up and want to search/detain a girl and one of them was clearly born male? Hopefully, it would be the Headteacher who would take the lead in protecting a child and the Governors/Trustees/Members/Diocese/Board would support them, but there's also the possibility that some middleaged, low paid woman finds herself in handcuffs for refusing to allow a male born officer access to a girl's body.

@Faffertea

I plan to write to Kit Malthouse too. For those who have/plan to write can you share what you’ve put. So far I’m so angry I can’t get past ‘wtf is this?’ and a reference to what Boris said and asking what action they’ll take but I guess that’s be brushed aside!

I'm going to write too, Faffertea.

The guidance is illegal and advocates sexual assault. This is outrageous, given recent incidents of Police Brutality against females of all ages, ranging from Sarah Everard, Child Q and the vigil in Sarah's memory, where a court found Police guilty of staunching female freedom of expression.

What grounds have the NPCC to contradict the 1984 Parliamentary Act of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in Code H Annex A , which states that “When strip searches are conducted: (a) a police officer carrying out a strip search must be the SAME SEX as the detainee”?

Also, are Priti Patel and Kit Malthouse aware that under Rule 19 of the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) the NCCP guidance constitute torture?

Rule 19 of Bangkok Rules states:

“MALE members of staff should NEVER be involved in the PERSONAL SEARCHES of women prisoners INCLUDING PAT DOWN & FRISK SEARCHES. All searches of women should be carried out by WOMEN.”

and emphasizes in relation to strip searches:
“Special sensitivity should be demonstrated in the case of women, however, because they are likely to feel the humiliation of undergoing intimate searches. The experience may be extremely distressing and traumatizing if they have been victims of sexual abuse in the past.”

We call on the NPCC to rescind this "guidance" at once, and we want the person responsible for this dog's dinner to resign! This is appalling!

WTAF?

@FOJN

Who gets to define discriminatory views?

Quite. I wouldn't object to being searched by a transman but I would not accept being searched by a transwoman on the basis that they are male not because they are trans.

100% agree.

@DomesticatedZombie

'The Toolkit has been funded by the Police Superintendents’ Association, Surrey Police, Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner, Mr David Munro as the EDHR lead, in consultation with Stonewall.'

Dated July 2018 - so very interestingly the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner then was David Munro.

He was deselected as the Conservative candidate for the May 2021 PCC elections, and was replaced with the excellent Lisa Townsend. Munro stood as an Independent and lost to Townsend.

So this material is obselete, in many senses.

Basically women saying 'no' (be they citizens or police officers) is considered discriminatory against the wants of men.

@334bu

Not sure if a female officer declining to search and then referring suspect to a third party,the Custody Officer, would constitute breaching the law, if suspect they refuse to search has a GRC

The key thing is to leave any reference to or mention of 'trans' or GRCs out of it entirely. Park it all.

I think, like others have said, and as the new EHRC guidelines say, we need to focus on biological sex.

I object to you searching me because I believe that you are male, and I am female.

We are different biological sexes. If you carry on, I demand a senior officer and a solicitor immediately to witness the sexual assault, and take my complaint.

I am refusing to search you because I believe you to be male, and I am female.

Think of the identity-woo as a red herring.

David Munro was an independent who stood for re-election but was beaten by the fantastic Lisa Townsend. Looking at his campaign material, he actually had the nerve to say that one of his 3 key priorities included raising the crime solving rate and that “Crimes against women, including serious sexual assault, need to be dealt with more effectively.” I can’t believe I voted for him as I didn’t trust the candidates for any of the political parties and he was promising to “keep Surrey Police out of party politics.” Thank goodness Lisa Townsend won.

I didn’t realise he’d been deselected as the Conservative candidate. Wonder why?

@AnnieLou12

I didn’t realise he’d been deselected as the Conservative candidate. Wonder why?

There's a little on it here

www.guildford-dragon.com/2019/03/02/david-munro-deselected-as-tory-police-commissioner-candidate/

And here

www.guildford-dragon.com/2019/02/08/police-commissioner-continues-to-fight-for-torry-nomination/

I would say that David Munro didn't understand the gender-woo, didn't really give a shit about it or its implications, and got someone else to sign it all off. I also expect he had local MP Crispin Blunt bleating into his ear all the time about 'most oppressed'.

And then because the elections in 2020 were cancelled, by May 2021 Lisa Townsend had presumably become the Conservative candidate and just happened to have read the brief a bit better, and had a spine, things changed quite a bit.

Thanks Spinning. Just goes to show that you can’t assume a so called independent candidate doesn’t have strong ties with any political party. Something to bear in mind at the upcoming local elections.

Who should we write to? I hope Sex Matters pick this up.

The key thing is to leave any reference to or mention of 'trans' or GRCs out of it entirely. Park it all.

Totally agree with this.

And anyone arguing for the right of male people to handle female people intimately against their will.....? Has a problem.

@Artichokeleaves

The key thing is to leave any reference to or mention of 'trans' or GRCs out of it entirely. Park it all.

Totally agree with this.

And anyone arguing for the right of male people to handle female people intimately against their will.....? Has a problem.

This doesn't work though. It's discriminatory (according to the misogynists) for women to voice the fact that men who claim they are women are male. It's a hate crime to talk about biology with a transwoman in the room.

This is the nub of it. It's about the right of a male person to an uninterrupted fiction.

But if that male wishes to put their hands on my body and require me to allow them to do something I would not allow any male to do because I shouldn't interrupt their fiction?

Well they just drove me to the discourtesy of being very plain about no, I am not participating in this fiction any further. The limits of gender identity is other people's sex based rights.

Their right to not be upset by reality does not trump my right not to be sexually assaulted by them. Again, just baffled at what I'm finding myself typing, why on earth should this have to be explained at all in this day and age.

"Their right to not be upset by reality does not trump my right not to be sexually assaulted by them. Again, just baffled at what I'm finding myself typing, why on earth should this have to be explained at all in this day and age.

Once again women become emotional support creatures there to pander to the fantasies of male-born individuals rather than individuals in our own right who have needs for privacy, safety and dignity. It's appalling

Their right to not be upset by reality SHOULD NOT but apparently in some situations DOES trump my right not to be sexually assaulted by them.

I mean this is the truth of it. Women HAVE been sexually assaulted by TW in prison and yet the TW still are being put in there. So yes, this ideology thinks the hurt feelings of some men are more important than women's safety.

This is in common between incels, the Taliban and TRAs. They all think women shouldn't have the right to say 'no' to whatever a male wants.

The ironic thing about it all is there is nothing more blatantly emblematic of the toxic male than someone who tramples over everyone else's rights and feelings. It's definitely not 'womanly'.

Claim womanhood whilst all the while behaving like the worst most toxic entitled males ever.

As someone on Overit observed "This is state sanctioned sexual assault against women. This cannot be allowed."

You are completely correct @Datun - Whoever wrote the law previously didn't imagine that trans would become such a trojan horse. But now its clear that it is, we need to set it out in law what is not acceptable.

We cannot be ok with nebulous guidance and unaccountable public bodies just deciding for themselves that males can be held in women's prisons.

We should all be worried that such public bodies have actually been making these decisions too, and that there will be no consequences for them. These sinister people decided to put sex offenders with women, and they still have their jobs and pensions. Apparently it is not gross misconduct if they are driven by ideology.

They need to understand the overwhelming male entitlement that will make 'discretionary' policies always favour men at women's expense.

And look at the tons and tons of evidence that gets bigger weekly, that says this entitlement will always push as far as it can possibly go. Anything opened a crack and relying on male people being fair, kind, reasonable and able to reciprocally extend courtesy and respect for females will just be slammed open to its widest possible extent.

@DontLikeCrumpets

As someone on Overit observed "This is state sanctioned sexual assault against women. This cannot be allowed."

Ominous.

That is the word I would use to describe this development.

I've been analysing this news in my head since I learnt about it last night. Politically, my position is that this policy crosses the Rubicon and is indicative of a level of state seizure that cannot be tolerated.