Today is a horrendous day for women.

[Catsanfan]

I haven't the energy to explain, just skim Aja's twitter this morning. So much there, I am losing heart. Especially the police thing.

Intimate body searches have to be conducted with at least two other people present.

And?

I don't care if they have to be done in the presence of Queen Victoria. They still need to be done by someone of the same sex.

and if any one, or potentially all three of those police officers are men it is an absolutely disgusting abuse of power. No matter how strenuously they might assert that they're lovely people or that they know how women feel their actions would be proving the opposite.

And?

It's not OK for women to be subjected to strip searches by men, regardless of who else is in the room.

Didn’t say it was.

You sound like my teenager.

What, then, was your point?

The f**king Labour Party and all others had better not be condoning this line of assault, although the Conservatives have allowed this to happen under their watch,.so Sunak should take immediate care of it if he truly had no knowledge before.
The misogyny in the UK is off the charts.

I’m not sure what your point is. I’ve expressed no strain or indeed opinion. I’ve just pointed out a poster’s error. She was ridiculing people about numbers when she had misread the original information.

I suppose, theoretically, a woman could be intimately searched by a tw and the...witness...chaperone could be another tw. This is something though that I believe has a vanishingly small chance of happening.

As a slight derail, if the witness/chaperone is there to ensure the copper behaves it should be someone who can be trusted to advocate for the person in custody. I wouldn't trust another copper. That murdering bastard was nicknamed 'the rapist' because his workmates thought it was funny rather than concerning. They've too often got each other's backs.

Perhaps this is already the case?

I suppose, theoretically, a woman could be intimately searched by a tw and the...witness...chaperone could be another tw. This is something though that I believe has a vanishingly small chance of happening.

Vanishingly small so long as the two events were statistically independent and linked only by random chance. Which they're not, because people with similar interests often seek each other out.

😂

Revenons a nos moutons gendarmes.

They'll never take me alive.

From grim experience, I'd suggest this is probably where the Stonewall good ally stars and the validation cookies are.

It will say same sex.

It will mean that men can be any sex they say they are.

And the police are such good allies that they will even let those men assault women under the pretense of those men being the sex they say they are, and punish women for daring to resist or mention actual reality.

It's the ultimate virtue signal.

This is what happens when you let the words sex and gender get conflated, and you try to be kind about the word 'woman' ever applying to a man. Or that a man is ever anything other than a man.

Actual footage of you?
My point was merely to correct a misunderstanding. Do you accept my correction was accurate? If so, what’s the issue? If not, why (when it’s perfectly clear the numbers I quoted are what was previously given on the thread)?

Please stop trying to derail this thread. It's an offence against Mumsnet.

I won't be replying to you again. No need, no point.

It’s not an offence against anything. I corrected a poster’s misconception. You weren’t even the poster I corrected. No idea why you were replying to me anyway, really. I’m not trying to derail, either, just to ensure that discussion is based on accurate facts not misconceptions.

Good grief.

What's your point then?

Also you still owe an apology to that other poster whose comment you completely misread/didn't understand and embarrassingly charged in on your high horse to challenge....

I made it. The sentence was whole.

I see the but it never happens/is such a small number don't worry your pretty little heads about it brigade have visited!

If a man knows there is a legitimate way to violate women's boundaries and sexually assault her that is not only sanctioned by his bosses but doesn't come with a threat of a few years in jail than that currently small number of men will increase.

And whilst some people might be OK with the current small numbers (never thinking for one moment that they themselves could find themself being the woman being sexually assaulted by a police officer because policy says he can) I personally don't think any woman should have to even have the thought in her head that it could be a possibility that she is strip searched by a man.

This policy change was all about validating someone's gender feels whilst not giving one single shiny shit about women. And I'm fucking sick of this crap!

Ah. It was just irrelevant then 👍

To you.

I don’t care if it’s 1 or even none, the fact that the policy exists speaks to a lack of interest in the rights and safety of women who are potentially affected and who know that, if strip searched, could find themselves being searched by someone who is biologically male.

After all, there was only one Wayne Couzens and that was more than enough.

I’d be more than happy to read it in the Guardian or BBC but they wouldn’t touch a story like this. Not because it isn’t true but because they are so utterly captured by this toxic ideology.

So instead of whining about the horror of people reading the Mail, maybe ask yourself why the Graun etc won’t publish stories like this.