This barrister interviewed by Andrew Doyle (who easily dismantled his arguments IMO) - do you think he really believes the guff he is spouting? Or is this just his gravy train?
He just disregards women in favour of men (no surprises there) and comes out with all of the old familiar tropes and seems wilfully blind to evidence. He comes across as patronising and arrogant to me. I thought Andrew Doyle handled him really well.
He thinks that male offenders who identifies women shouldn't be "double-punished" by being placed in the "wrong prison", because this is upsetting for them. (The "double punishment" of women who are then placed in a cell with a man who may rape them is apparently not worth considering.)
Never ceases to astonish me the way supposedly intelligent and certainly highly educated people get carried along with this nonsense.