Police drop guidance allowing trans officers to strip search people of the opposite biological sex

[IwantToRetire]

National police guidance <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/0yVBP/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/10/transgender-police-officers-born-male-permitted-strip-search/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">allowing transgender officers to strip search people of the opposite biological sex has been temporarily withdrawn after the Government raised concerns about women’s safety.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council told The Telegraph that it was conducting a “thorough” review of its guidance on searches conducted by transgender officers. “In the meantime, forces have been advised to revert to their own policies on strip searches,” the body said.

The review came after <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/0yVBP/www.telegraph.co.uk/chris-philp/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Chris Philp, the policing minister, said transgender officers should be stopped from conducting strip searches on suspects of the opposite sex unless they have changed their legal gender.

This weekend, three prominent campaign groups wrote to Mr Philp praising the Government’s decision to ask the National Police Chiefs Council to “look again” at guidance but insisting that obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) should not qualify a trans woman police officer to strip search a female detainee.

Full article from Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/13/police-drop-guidance-allowing-strip-searches-trans-officers/

Can also be read at https://archive.ph/0yVBP

Sense at last.

But in the article, neither Philp the policing minister nor the NPCC nor the home office concede that. Its just the three campaign groups that insist that a a GRC is no exception to the same sex rule.

There's no victory here (yet?!)

From the article:

"In a statement an NPCC spokesman said: “All searches are dealt with on a case-by-case basis after consideration by a custody sergeant based on the response of the detainee.
“Searches are carried out in line with the officer or staff members training and legal authority, taking into account our responsibilities under both the Equality Act 2010 and Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Pace codes of practice are clear that strip searches should be conducted by someone of the same sex and particularly for the safety of women that means someone of the same born biological sex or, in a very small number of cases, in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate."

I think the article's headline is false and misleading. The headline writer has got it wrong

It's not really been "dropped" because most of the forces surveyed have adopted the NPCC guidance as their own guidance.

When NPCC says:

“In the meantime, forces have been advised to revert to their own policies on strip searches,”

"Their own policies" = the NPCC policy.

Of the 47 forces consulted, 35 confirm they have either already implemented, or are in the process of implementing this policy.

https://www.womensrights.network/send-police-report

Each police force now needs to be challenged, demanding that they

a) drop their policy if it mirrors the NPCC guidance that is now "under review" by the NPCC

b) follow the law.

Women’s Rights Network (WRN) calls upon the policing service, the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and every Chief Constable to:

1. Stop the implementation of the NPCC transgender search guidance.

2. Reverse any steps already taken to implement it.

3. Ensure searching practices comply entirely with legislation, specifically with regard to sex.

Furthermore, we recommend that the NPCC:

4. Reviews and amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Code C Annex L to ensure it complies with the Equality Act 2010 single-sex exemptions

5. Makes public the previous legal advice on the guidance, referred to in the NPCC policy paper, in the interests of transparency and accountability.

6. Ensures that every force includes sex-realist women’s groups in their Independent Advisory Groups to ensure appropriate scrutiny of stop-search and its impact on women.

7. Ensures that all internal policies and training are compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

See page 13:
https://www.womensrights.network/_files/ugd/18f02a_e6a74d90ef174fb49f0a270e2734902e.pdf

I see. Never trust a headline.

In a statement an NPCC spokesman said: “All searches are dealt with on a case-by-case basis after consideration by a custody sergeant based on the response of the detainee."

How can it possibly be acceptable to look to the "response of the detainee", who is in an inherently vulnerable position, and what does this even mean?

There should be guidance that all forces are obliged to follow saying men should never search women even if they do have a certificate from the government pretending they are female.

Have they though? I bet the 'own policies' either say it's OK or are vague as mash on it.

They haven’t stopped with recording the NCHIs yet have they?

What the Home Office rep says as quoted by @Mumoftwo1312at 04.22 above only makes any sense (and is in any way acceptable) if the 'woman' is a transwoman. So sex = birth sex for both or all participants.

How can anyone rational think that possession of a £5 piece of paper changes anything in this context?

We still have a huge fight on our hands with this, don't be persuaded of any progress yet.

BTW, I read an article yesterday (can't recall where) about the Home Office. Apparently, it is bedecked with political flags and slogans, progress pride flags, the mantras, the lot.

As pp said, this Telegraph article is a bit of a non story. The individual police forces have already integrated the NPCC guidance, in existence for 2 years, into their "own policies".

Fair Cop and Keep Prisons Single Sex have said they are partnering in a crowdfunded action for a legal challenge to the NPCC guidelines. This will involve getting a senior legal opinion in the first instance.

They haven’t stopped with recording the NCHIs yet have they?

No, from a couple of stories they seem to have interpreted that they need to arrest people to be able to record them, rather than not record them at all. Which is completely the opposite of what the judgment was supposed to achieve.

It's not a victory if a Gender Recognition Certificate is considered sufficient "proof" that a man is a woman.

A GRC is a legal fiction created so that transwomen could marry men before gay marriage was legalised. Now that anyone can marry anyone GRCs should be phased out. There is no need for them as gender has no legal impact - where things are still separated for men and women it's due to sex not gender differences so a GRC is irrelevant.

If I am arrested I do not accept that a male person with a GRC counts as a woman for the purpose of protecting my dignity and well-being during whatever unpleasant searches need to be carried out. Forcing me to pretend otherwise would be a serious violation of human rights.

On the other current thread about this there is a former female police officer who talks about the strip search process.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4982408-transwomen-should-be-able-to-strip-search-women-if-they-have-a-grc

As an aside I see the narrative has shifted. In that the btw commentators are all much more clued up on the festishistic nature of many cross-dressers.

Plus, it's coming as a massive shock that transwomen are even allowed in the police. The assumption is that they are either mentally unwell, or perverted. Mostly the latter.

I mean it's a bit of a foot shooting exercise, isn't it, to insist that you are able to strip search woman, just because you pretend you are one.

And in terms of people being clued up, I've noticed it on Twitter, on the few occasions I dip in, too.

Since Musk lifted the censorship, almost everyone knows what AGP is, and are accurately identifying men with it, all over the shop.

(It's my opinion that sex is the driver for all male transitioning. Either the fetishisation of women's lower status, or deep homophobia and an attempt to attract straight men. But you're not allowed to generalise on here).

This whole 'case by case' phrase needs binning.

What does that even mean in this context? That someone will evaluate the case for letting this particular man coerce and use this particular woman?

They're mad.

Plus, it's coming as a massive shock that transwomen are even allowed in the police. The assumption is that they are either mentally unwell, or perverted. Mostly the latter. ^^

Transactivists used to always quote the British Social Attitudes Survey for 2017 when people both said that they supported the right to identify as the opposite sex but also rejected the idea that trans people should be police officers and primary school teachers. Guess which response the TRAs mentioned? And that finding (superseded by a much more positive result for this question in 2020) seems to have been memory holed on the Natcen website but it's referred to here:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/28/uk-support-is-rising-for-higher-taxes-to-fund-nhs-schools-and-police

Thank you for mentioning this survey, I hadn't heard of it. I found the results and I look forward to reading more

the British Social Attitudes Survey 2017 - GOV.UK https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c5401e2e5274a491a41388a/Attitudes-equality-social-attitudes-survey-2017a.pdf

I've given it a skim read and I can't find any reference to trans police or teachers. But I wouldn't be surprised if what you say about attitudes is true. Although perhaps it's changed in the last 5 years

It was late at night when posting, and anyway I trusted FWR to ferret out fact from fiction.

But ... even if it is only the Telegraph (again) I think it is good to see a headline about the issue to show that it hasn't fallen of the news radar.

And that the active campaigning by women's rights activists has been acknowledged.

So a small partial win, but obviously not a victory.

And as the Telegraph is (I assume) read by many Tory MPs lets hope the article reminds them they still have work to do.

But if males with a GRC aren’t allowed to strip search women, (as they aren’t women) why are males with a GRC incarcerated in womens prisons? Can anyone make that make sense?

Did anyone see WRN's Cathy Larkman, who authored the report, on GB News's 'Free Speech Nation' last night?

She told Andrew Doyle that the police want to increase their 'gender diverse' (my phrase, possibly not what Cathy said) staff & officers and that this 'we'll let you search women' is being used to attract such candidates.

WTAF???

Women as a prize. Never goes away, does it?

I'll have a re-listen before I compose my letter to these dangerous idiots.

I couldn't find the quote in the report or statement, but I'm sure I remember a comment about this being part of making recruitment into the police more attractive to men with gender identities.

Seriously, wtf.

Join the police and we'll let you coercively assault women.

What kind of bloody men are they wanting to recruit ffs?! Except a look at the Met and West Yorks police demonstrates: the issue with misogyny is a very, very serious one.

Well I'd like to see this adopted across the country by all police forces.

I wonder if any indiviual tranwomen police officer (GRC or not) would dare bring a legal challenge? That would mean the standing in court demanding the right to strip search women. Can't see how that would look good.

Join the police and we'll let you coercively assault women.

Cant think of strong enough words to use.

Just grotesque.