Girl abducted in Galashiels appears to have been held by transwoman

[ArabellaScott]

reduxx.info/scotland-crossdressing-butcher-arrested-in-case-of-missing-child/

Only source so far, but appears to be potentially corroborated by the Sun:

www.thesun.co.uk/news/21308457/cops-search-butchers-and-forensics-scour-for-evidence/

"Trans people need to be protected within this debate that it's done in a sensitive way, but equally we realise we need to have protections in place so people don't use the cover of pretending to be a woman in order to damage somebody else. That's where the challenge is."

FINALLY.

By George I think they're starting to get it!

Now let's just shuffle on a little bit further and have the courage to look at the next bit, which is that trans people need accessible facilities and so do female people, because exclusion isn't ok for anyone, and there have to be protections in place so people don't force entry in order to damage someone else.

Because there will, unfortunately, in every population, of all sexes and identities, be gits who will abuse the system and harm others if they can.

And then we can look at safeguarding, and we're almost there.

This one's been fairly well researched and discussed for some years.

The response is going to be somewhat like the Lib Dem leader's response this morning, and goes:

Well obviously now a child's been very seriously hurt, we need to have a debate.
Well yes, yes we did have a debate but I mean an actual debate.
Yes, those issues were raised with all the evidence presented and were shut down at the time, but it wasn't me. It definitely wasn't me who did that.
Yes, it's amazing that no one involved apparently did that either. It appears that a bigger boy did it and ran away.

The loopholes are huge. They have been repeatedly pointed out.

Ok can you spell it out for me though as I'm not sure what it means in reality. I know that there is a right to privacy on obtaining a GRC but surely this doesn't circumvent the Sex Offenders register?

Otherwise ALL a sex offender needs to do is identify as the opposite sex after conviction and then could get a DBS Enhanced certificate on the basis that they did not commit a crime. This surely can't be right?

Well obviously now a child's been very seriously hurt, we need to have a debate.
Well yes, yes we did have a debate but I mean an actual debate.
Yes, those issues were raised with all the evidence presented and were shut down at the time, but it wasn't me. It definitely wasn't me who did that.
Yes, it's amazing that no one involved apparently did that either. It appears that a bigger boy did it and ran away.

Blimey nils, that's uncanny. Do you moonlight as a politician speech writer?

I believe that's absolutely right. The DBS have a special hotline for these people to phone, to tell them that they have changed their name. But it's all based on a voluntary phone call.

Quick outline here with the details:
https://conservativehome.com/2022/09/28/kate-coleman-those-who-change-their-gender-must-not-escape-safeguarding-checks/

Shockingly this is a massive safeguarding loophole and yet not one UK political party, including the same government we have had for 13 years, seems willing to do anything about it. Why’s that?

I'm not saying that you are wrong but I cannot believe this is true? Surely not?

And how dare they then say there is no risk?

So is that what Ian Huntley is up to too, it's not just about gaining access to women in prison, is it? I mean he will be old when he gets out but surely, surely he won't be able to use loopholes to hide his past, even theoretically?

Just reading this now, I'd mentioned Ian Huntley in my post before opening it!

Shocking.

In order to be effective, the rules of safeguarding must apply equally to everyone. Whenever the members of one group are excused from the normal requirements of safeguarding, a loophole is created that is ripe for exploitation.

This quote is from that blog by Kate Coleman, and shows the problem in a nutshell. The rules of safeguarding aren’t being applied to everyone, in this case, so as to avoid potentially hurting some men’s feelings.
The potentially devastating risks of not hurting some men’s feelings are borne by everyone else, but of course primarily by women and our children.

Yes, it’s completely unacceptable. I’d suggest writing to your MP to register your concern about this because everyone in power is still just looking the other way , on purpose.

This quote is from that blog by Kate Coleman, and shows the problem in a nutshell. The rules of safeguarding aren’tbeing applied to everyone, in this case, so as to avoid potentially hurting some men’s feelings.

What's even more ridiculous is anyone can be a self declared member of the group to whom safeguarding is not applied.

Who, out of everyone, and more than anyone else, wants to avoid detection when it comes to the safeguarding of women and children?

I’m not sure about this slant of presenting Miller as using women’s clothes “as a cover” despite the fact it does support the argument for single sex spaces. He didn’t dress up as a woman on this specific occasion to trick a child - he was living as a transwoman for several years.

Absolutely agree, slam. The current narrative, which is to be honest a climbdown, is the politicians finally agreeing that predators may abuse advantages given to them on the basis of their identifying as trans.

Going by Shona Robison's response, the current stance is that if a man does something bad, he ipso facto can't be trans.

It's not accurate, of course, but it's at least the first step towards recognising that trans people have the same risk factors as other people and are not above the law nor outside safeguarding principles.

Absolutely I’ll take it as a sign of progress, but begrudgingly!

On the subject of identity changes and offenses: (Content warning, CSA)

https://reduxx.info/uk-woman-who-was-sexually-abused-by-transgender-pedophile-has-her-objection-to-his-early-prison-release-rejected/

This woman was abused by her father for years. He has 'allowed' his parole officer to notify her of his name change. Had he not given that permission, she would not have known about his new identity, as 'Claire Fox'.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/well-ye-huv-noo/

'the First Minister of Scotland was deferring to the feelings of a convicted rapist and a convicted paedophile'

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

The DBS offers two choices - you can either put both identities on the normal form and have both names listed on the certificate.

OR
You can use their phone line so that only the newest name appears on the certificate.

What they don’t seem to have realised is that a nefarious person could just do neither of the two government offered options but can attempt an option 3, use only the new identity on the normal form and hope that nothing found in the records check connects the new name with the old name!

And privacy regulations relating to GDPR and GRCs can be leveraged to severe ALL the connections between identities in databases - eg the NHS doesn’t change the sex marker on existing records, instead it issues a completely new NHS number in the new name and sex (some trans people have had issues with hospitals requesting payment for A&E services because the new record looks like that of a recent immigrant - no childhood health records visible and a newly minted NHS number issued to an adult, rather than an older number issued to a newborn!). The completely new NHS number thing came about as part of the GRA legislation, but in practice you don’t actually need a GRC to get a new NHS number, nor do you need to have a Gender Dysphoria diagnosis or have started any gender related medical interventions - you can just request it via your GP reception desk team and they have to send it on to a centralised service.

Presumably when the new NHS number thing was dreamt up it was imagined to be a last step after a diagnosis of transsexualism, 2 years ‘in role’ and genital surgery - nowadays a new NHS number seems to be a very early step for most transitioners and that means it could be utilised by someone as part of setting up a new identity (and erasing an old one) for nefarious reasons, even if they don’t actually intend on medical or surgical intervention.

Pink Floyd's first single was on the topic of stealing underwear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H3DGpINHX5Q

FWIW, Arnold Layne gets caught and jailed:

Now he's caught – a nasty sort of person
They gave him time
Doors bang – chain gang – he hates it

Oh, Arnold Layne
It's not the same, takes two to know, two to know, two to know
Why can't you see?
Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne, Arnold Layne
Don't do it again

I think whether a predatory man was dressing in women’s clothes for years (sometimes, or all the time, whatever) should not be allowed as a mitigating part of his defence to a sex offence against women.

If it were, then men like that could not be held responsible for the premeditation aspects of their crimes. If say, a man has a chosen victim profile (a female child), and then in order to best entrap female children that man wears female-coding clothes and body padding, that would point to an intent for the man to offend while in disguise of his real sex. The disguise is intended to deceive the child to drop their guard because they think it’s a female person they are dealing with and (as in this case) then the child might then willingly get in the man’s car. The disguise would both create more opportunities for the man to offend and would reduce the chances of getting caught because the victim accompanies them willingly without causing any scene someone might notice.

It's unacceptable that anyone putting on disguises to trick other people, where the disguise helps the disguised person to offend, can just claim ‘gender identity’ and then a whole aspect of better enabling their crimes to take place will be instantly ignored.

On other cases trickery by perpetrators is seen by judges as an aggravating factor, so why not here?

At least in Ireland, problematic as self-Id is, a person's unique public services number (PPS) stays with them throughout. Since that is used on everything including tax and financial documents, work records, medical records and, obviously, any police checks, a gender change doesn't leave a person's past behind them.

The use of the word "motherly" gave the rage. How bloody dare he?

I see Radio 4’s Any Questions is in Scotland tonight and that Patrick Harvie of the Scottish Greens is on the panel. I do hope the audience tries to pin him down on Scot Gov’s willingness to expose women to harm in its GR bill and refusal to allow safeguarding amendments.

Yes. He was known at High School for dressing in girls clothes. I moved locally in 2005 & heard him called 'Mincing Miller' : I thought it was due to his trade, but in fact it was due to his proclivity for dressing in his wife's & other women's (stolen) clothing (hope she & his poor kids get some support too now given his further crimes).
So, it's not recent, nor is he 'confused'. But, it's an escalation. I always got the impression he wanted (demanded) endless attention - his whole 'being rude to people in the shop' - was very performative when I experienced it. Then he started to dress up in the shop too. He kept escalating & escalating, until finally now 'society' will stop his dangerous progress. It is beyond awful that an 11 year old child was abused before he was stopped. He's a dangerous man, & how this case is treated is vitally important in Scotland.

He was meant to be sentenced a few weeks ago but theres not been any mention of it. I do wonder what will happen

'Miller, who appeared by videolink from HMP Edinburgh, was remanded in custody and will appear for sentencing on August 15.'

Hm. Nothing in the news.

Am just across the road in Ayrshire, this has been just horrible.