Shadow Justice Secretary, Steve Reed, says TW convicted of violence should not be sent to a women's prison

[MoirasSaggyBundles]

And this is apparently the official Labour Party line. He also indicates they should be excluded from women's refuges. Although he caveats with case by case basis nonsense. Has he consulted with Kier Starmer and the rest of the muppets in his party?

Susannah Reid is so on this. GMB have been really good covering this topic the last couple of days - probably because ITV got the NS clusterfuck interview, but even so, good to see a proper in-depth discussion, with no "be kind" emotive shite on mainstream TV. Sunlight.

*sexual violence

And .... we can't tell. We simply cannot tell.

He's refusing to join the dots.

This!

I am sick of this nonsense, this lie, that we already know which men women need to be afraid of, so can just keep them out of prisons/ refuges (because, apparently TRA refuge workers think they can magically spot 'bad' men identifying as women because they are 'professionals' ) and all will be well.

Its a lie that all the evidence and data and case evidence and lived experience and all of human history disproves.

I am just sick of this lie! Just sick of it! And if they start to implement it, it will lead to the case made by the muppet upthread that all we need to do is segregate convicted sex offenders, and then there is no need for single sex prisons at all! Or single sex anything!

I am not. I am saying that anyone no matter what sex or gender that commits rape should be alongside vulnerable people. They should be segregated into a sex crime sector. Which is what should be happening already.

And I see "case by case basis" is this week's new think.

Men aren't women's problem to solve

I am not. I am saying that anyone no matter what sex or gender that commits rape should be alongside vulnerable people.

And you take absolutely no measures to prevent rapes in the first place. Bravo.

What proportion of sexual assaults are performed by already-convicted sex offenders, do you think?

It's got to be low single digits. Why are you determined to invent "solutions" that solve 3% of the problem, rather than continue with the long-established one that solves 99% of the problem?

Your category segregation proposal might contribute to safety in men's prisons, where you don't have an existing 99% solution, but it's unnecessary in women's prisons, where simply excluding males is far superior.

That's a completely separate issue. Prisoners should all be separated by sex, and then within those single-sex prisons, particular categories of prisoners can be separated.

This. He showed no awareness of what he had just said, did he? He seemed to think he was cleverly moving the conversation onto the failings of the government rather than illustrating that most men who commit assaults are not convicted... so just keeping the convicted ones out of prison does not keep women safe..

I just despair of the quality of our politicians. That man just came across as really stupid. I would expect an A-level student in a debating club to handle themselves better than that. None of these people have grasped the brief on this issue, have they? None of them have analysed the arguments to come up with a coherent, evidence based position. This is why they flounder and contradict themselves.

And actually, its women who have been used as a political football on this issue, so fuck off.

Into a 'Sex Crime' section held within single sex prisons with only people of the same sex?

Ok. Great.

And all the rest of the crimes sorted by sex as well, and never by 'gender'.

OK. Great. Thank you.

Everyone keeps talking about this male, and the evidence would suggest that they are rarer than a unicorn.

Would someone please locate this male and interview them? And then possibly the liberal left may like to keep them well dusted in a glass case, since they seem to be so very important to the case of getting men into women's facilities against the wishes and best interests of said women.

This seemed to be the rather confused message from an interview earlier with someone - I can't remember whom. That no sex offender should be in a women's prison.

Which seemed to imply including the women.

Are we going to put sex offending women in the male estate?

If we did have a sex offender prison or unit that was wholly mixed sex, there would still be one group at much greater risk, suffering much greater damage, making up well over three quarters of the victims and very very few of the perpetrators. And regardless of how you manipulate the language and play with pronouns, you will still be able to identify this group on a sex basis.

As someone said very wisely a few days ago, sex segregation in prisons is needed, it works, it's worked for 200 years, and it's only being played with to try and wangle around to fit a square peg in a round hole - to accommodate a very small group of men who insist on their right to access women, have no interest in the wellbeing and impact of their presence on women, and don't think women matter.

Those men's needs can all be met in the male estate.

This 'stuff 'em all in together' mad passing thought also introduces another issue that we're also all going to encounter soon.

Which is: how many males can be in a women's group of prisoners before the females are in such a minority it is no longer viable?

A mixed sex grouping of sex offenders is going to be overwhelmingly male.

The MoJ will not place females of any identity in the male estate because of the risk of sexual assault. (Which seems in that context to be something that matters: goodness knows it doesn't normally.)

How many males can identify into the female estate before the same tipping point is reached?

And shall we face the fact that as we introduce all these category A male prisoners into the women's estate, we will eventually need a specific category A women's prison. Which will have very few if any females in the group of women imprisoned there.

"Does Labour think that a tanswoman who has been convicted of a sexual offence against a woman shouldbe sent to a women's prison?"

"No. That's a pretty clear answer I can't make it plainer than that. But absolutely not and I'll tell you why: because the overriding prioirity here is the protection of women and that overrides any rights that a prisoner in those circumstances might claim so for me you cannot put an offender who has been convicted of sexual or potentially serious physical attacks on women in a prison with other women."

Full marks for never saying "transwoman" in the same sentence as "offender" and "sexual attack", and a bonus for not saying "male" or "man" here either. "Prisoner in those circumstances", eh. Someone must have prepared that answer well in advance. And finishing with "other women".

With "case by case basis" doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Hm.

I think I see some bets being hedged.

Women's prisons are for women Steve,WOMEN.

Not men wearing lipstick and leggings,regardless of their crimes.

"Fraud doesn't involve sexual violence or sexual assualt"

So let's consider "fraud" and how prevalent it is in plausible manipulative people who are not well grounded in social ethics and who are very good at taking advantage of vulnerable people... and then put them in prison with shedloads of psychologically vulnerable women while (honestly of course) presenting as women themselves. How's that going to play out?

And then I wonder how many violent male offenders are violent to women as well, even if they were only convicted of violence against other men. Violence is violence and how many people are convicted for a serious violent offence who are otherwise harmless and peaceable?

Case by case basis. Yeah, right.

These trans women rapists who are in prisons? Will they be getting life sentences?

Because if not they will be released at some point and what about being able to access women's loos etc then?

What about before they were caught? What about before they committed their crimes? What about the ones who were never caught, or charged, or convicted?

And that's just trans women, what about men who just say they are trans?

Because if they don't belong in a women's jail where they can be monitored and risk assessed and perhaps properly managed, they sure as hell don't belong in the marks and Spencer women's changing rooms.

So how can we tell, how do we know which ones are this breed of biological male that don't belong in women's prisons, how can we judge when we have just got out of the swimming pool or are coming round from a major operation?

Its as if they have no understanding of the sorts of people who break laws

Reed must explain his extraordinary and extremist view that a small subset of male convicts should be given the special privilege of choosing which prison they serve their time in.

this

Well nailed down.

Did I also hear right that with regard to refuges he said the women at the refuge should decide (on a case by case basis) if they think a man who says he is a women is a threat?

Because that certainly is not happening.

He also included violent men who say they are women. So basically transwomen are allowed in women's prisons if they are not. 'threat', but surely if you were doing a risk assessment you would come to the conclusion that a man in apridon will always be a threat. A man's punch is nearly 3 times more powerful than a woman's.
We have to get back to no males whatever they say they are in female spaces.

He's obviously unaware of Scotland's transwoman paedophile Katie didn't he stay at a women's hostel in Leeds