Keep Prisons Single Sex Wind Down

[KeepPrisonsSingleSex]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks again for all your past support and continued words of encouragement. It really means a lot to me and the rest of the KPSS team.

We will cease operating on 30th June. Which leaves the rest of the month to get as much work done as possible. We will also be asking you to take action, not just now but on an ongoing basis.

Our reports based on our research remain as relevant today as they did when we first published them. We always take a safeguarding first position. This means that our work often raises important points that no other group does.
Our hope is that you will continue to use these to hold prospective MPs, the newly elected government & parliamentarians, the police and other organisations to account.

We will be tweeting this out over the next couple of weeks, and I will be posting here on Mumsnet too, beginning with our body of work on policing.

We are beginning with our Manifesto for Policing, which we jointly produced with We Are Fair Cop.

Policing is in thrall to gender identity ideology & no force has escaped capture.
We see this in data collection on victims & suspects of crime, communication with the public, forces' allegiance to social activist groups, arresting people for their lawfully expressed views, searching protocols.

Our Manifesto for Policing calls for a return to effective and fair policing:

• Policing with neutrality and without fear or favour
• Forces and officers display no allegiance to any one group
• Policing is devoid of political, cultural or social activism
• Policing decisions are based on evidence not ideology
• Services and practices are developed and managed in order to best meet the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system

The Manifesto is available on our website. Use it when talking to those who want your vote.

We have posted details for every police force nationally on Twitter. You can search using #ManifestoForPolicing.

Manifesto is available here:

https://kpssinfo.org/manifesto-for-police-and-crime-commissioners-pdf/

If your force is missing, it's because they didn't reply. If there's a question your force hasn't answered, it's because they didn't.

Over the rest of this week, we will continue our focus on policing. Although we close at the end of June, but our work remains relevant. USE IT!!!

Use it when speaking to those who want your vote next month.
Use it to hold the newly elected government to account.
We couldn't get the Manifesto in front of the NPCC
We couldn't get the Manifesto in front of the College of Policing
We couldn't get the Manifesto to HMICFRS
We couldn't get the Manifesto to policy orgs
We couldn't get the Manifesto reported in the mainstream media

Why? Because in 2024 we have the least amount of reach we have ever had since we began.

So - it's over to all of you.

Make what we did count.

Thank you so much Kate for all your hard work and well done for achieving one of the most significant wins in years.

Thank you for all of the hard work you have done, it is much appreciated. Sending you very best wishes for the future

Thank you so much.

Thank you for everything you have done. I also really appreciate your efforts

Thank you, you have achieved so much and been really inspirational to women like me. I'm really sorry you've had to shut KPSS down.

Have written to my PCC a few times and he's a good one who recognises the importance of women's rights and safeguarding and the reality of biological sex. However, without the resources and activism from KPSS maybe I wouldn't have written and maybe he'd have felt no need to speak up.

Thank you.

Thank you!

Thank you

Thank you.

As an aside, and I'm not sure if this is the place to ask. I heard that a good number of sex offenders (CSA images) also had pictues of themselves and/or other men cross-dressing. When the police investigate the possesion and/or sharing of CSA images, do they collate this data also?

An important part of our work on policing has been holding forces to account regarding data collection.

In 2022, we published our first report on how police forces in England & Wales record suspects' sex in crime & incident reporting.

You can read that report here:
https://kpssinfo.org/kpss-police-recording-sex-2022-pdf/

We produced a Supplementary Document on Police Scotland which you can read here:
https://kpssinfo.org/how-police-scotland-records-suspects-sex-pdf/

In 2023 we published our report How Police Forces in the United Kingdom Record Suspects' Sex in Crime & Incident Reporting; 2023 Update. This included data for Police Scotland and Police Service Northern Ireland. You can read it here:
https://kpssinfo.org/how-police-forces-in-the-uk-record-suspects-sex-2023-update/

Sex registered at birth is a fundamental demographic and explanatory variable which is established throughout the criminal justice system as important to analysing patterns of offending, pathways into offending and risk. These differences between males and females underpin policy and practice throughout every aspect of the criminal justice system.

Despite the recognised importance of sex registered at birth, the Home Office does not currently mandate how police forces should record a suspect’s sex. Freedom of Information Access Requests indicate that many police forces in England and Wales record suspects’ gender identity in lieu of sex registered at birth, frequently on the basis of self-identification and including where the suspected offence is rape. Some forces stated that they record the sex of a suspect who identifies as non-binary as indeterminate, unspecified or other.

Offending patterns differ significantly between males and females with males committing the large majority of offences. Some offence categories are very rarely committed by females. This means that the allocation of even one or two cases of male offending to the female subgroup, on the basis of the suspect’s gender identity, may have a significant impact on the data, compromising both its reliability and its utility to service development.

The data recording decisions made by individual police forces affect the criminal justice system more widely. This is because data collected by police forces are transferred over onto other data management systems, including the Police National Computer (one of the main sources of information for Disclosure and Barring Service checks), the Annual Data Requirement (provided to the Home Office for research and statistical purposes) and Magistrates and Crown Courts case management systems. The decisions police forces make concerning data recording are key.

Guidance issued by the College of Policing, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and the UK Statistical Authority recognises the importance of sex, its significance to policing and the need to record sex as one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 for reasons that include forces public sector equality duty and other legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

There have been moves issue guidance that mandates that sex registered at birth be overwritten by gender identity only where the suspect (or victim) has been issued with a GRC. We do not view this as a victory or an acceptable temporary compromise. In fact, this will create additional difficulties. Currently we are dealing with the recording decisions made by individual forces, which are not backed up by policy or guidance. Any guidance that mandates forces to record legally recognised acquired gender in lieu of sex registered at birth will make tackling the recording decisions of police forces much more difficult. Of course, this also has an impact on GRA2004 as it bolsters the significance & importance of a GRC.

Accurate, relevant and reliable data on offending is a legitimate public interest. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the interests of data collection are best served when police forces collect data on suspects’ sex registered at birth. Our recommendations in the accompanying Report are grounded in the collection of data on the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. These include that the Home Office issue clear centralised guidance which mandates police forces to record suspects’ sex registered at birth: the lawfulness of this is clear, including where a suspect is in receipt of a gender recognition certificate.

Our intention was to conduct this exercise on an annual basis, asking the same set of FOIAs to police forces nationally. Of course, that will now no longer be possible.

We have been unable to get these reports in front of the NPCC, College of Policing, HMICFRS, or in front of the vast majority of Police & Crime Commissioners, despite persistent attempts. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians, including those who would describe themselves as "GC", now show very little interest in our work.

We simply no longer have the reach in 2024 that we had in 2021.

Our work will remain relevant even after we close. Please use it.

Thank you for everything you have done Kate.

Best wishes for everything you do in the future.

Any guidance that mandates forces to record legally recognised acquired gender in lieu of sex registered at birth will make tackling the recording decisions of police forces much more difficult. Of course, this also has an impact on GRA2004 as it bolsters the significance & importance of a GRC.

Yes this has always been one of the main issues for me, and extending the availability of GRCs by making them easier to get, which some GC people don't seem all that concerned about as long as SSE exist, makes the definition of a woman less able to be based on biological sex.

Thank you for your incredible work Kate💐💐💐

In 2023 the NPCC @PoliceChiefs produced a Protected Characteristics Operational Recording Data Standard. This is intended to guide forces in their data collection practices, including for crime & incident reporting.

We found it, somewhat lacking & misleading, to put it mildly. In December 2023 we published our own PC Operational Recording Data Standard for Policing.

You can read it here:

https://kpssinfo.org/protected-characteristics-operational-recording-data-standard-for-policing-pdf/

For some protected characteristics, our guidance is identical, or very similar to that produced by the NPCC. However, in respect of other protected characteristics, our guidance differs considerably. Where we take a different approach, it is because we have sought to ensure that the question asked directly is informed by the relevance of data to offending and the requirements of policing and/or relates to the definition of the protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. Any deviation from the question formulated by the NPCC will reflect that.

Our guidance embodies the core principles.

The adoption of core principles aims to achieve a balance between the legitimate function of the State to capture core data about its citizens and the relevant privacy rights of individuals. In the context of policing, the State also has a legitimate function to protect citizens from crime: the aim is to produce accurate, relevant and reliable data on offending to support the analysis of patterns of offending, pathways into offending and risk, and to facilitate data accuracy across the criminal justice system that is of relevance and utility to service development and management. Accurate, relevant and reliable data on offending is a legitimate public interest: data recorded must meet the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

• Policing adopts a national standard for the recording of all protected characteristics that meets the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

• As far as possible, the policing data recording standard aligns with existing national data recording standards. However, divergence is both justified and required where necessary to meet the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

• The context within which policing should record each characteristic should be determined with reference to meeting the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system and national guidance provided.

• Standards should be annually reviewed to ensure that they continue to be align with core principles, and with the operational needs of policing and the criminal justice system.

• Language used in the collection and reporting of protected characteristics must be clear to avoid ambiguity and confusion among respondents and data users, which can undermine data and analytical quality, as well as belief in the validity and reliability of data.

We consider this document to be directly relevant to current NPCC work. We believe it is urgent & important.

However, we have unable to get this in front of the NPCC, College of Policing, HMICFRS, individual PCCs, parliamentarians (including those who are "GC"). Again, this is because of our diminished & ever-diminishing reach.

After our closure at the end of this month, this document will remain relevant.

Please use it.

Will your documents still be available from the website after the end of this month? If not, is it possible for you to archive them elsewhere?

Yes - the website, together with our vimeo, will remain up as a resource.

That's great, I will direct people there

Another area of our work on policing focuses on the policies for searching detainees, specifically those that allow for opposite sex searching where an officer identifies as transgender. The now infamous NPCC guidance dated December 2021 which mandated opposite sex searching in these circumstances can be read here:

https://kpssinfo.org/ccc-searching-by-transgender-officers-staff-09122021-pdf/

This guidance was rolled out across forces nationally and, in the main, was adopted without question. A few took a more cautious approach and in 2022 we were invited to give oral and written evidence to one police force. You can read our written submission here:

https://kpssinfo.org/police-searching-policy-pdf/

Thanks to exposure in the media from WRN, the NPCC policy is under review. However, the local policies adopted by individual forces remain in operation and, in many cases, permit and even mandate opposite sex searching of detainees. You can search the responses to the FOIAs we asked using on Twitter using #ManifestoForPolicing

In conjunction with Fair Cop we commissioned KC's opinion on the NPCC policy. Thank you to everyone who donated to the crowdfunder which made that possible. The opinion concluded that the guidance was not lawful. You can read that opinion here:

https://www.faircop.org.uk/police-strip-guidance-not-lawful/

At the beginning of June, the NPCC held a meeting with external stakeholders with a view to revising the guidance.

Together with Fair Cop we will be making a written submission.

This is our final post on policing.

After we revealed the safeguarding loopholes created in both Disclosure & Barring Service and Disclosure Scotland checks, we took it upon ourselves to examine the vetting processes forces have in place when recruiting officers, or when officers transfer or are promoted with or between forces.

Our research looking at DBS and Disclosure Scotland checks revealed that whenever a change of identity includes a change of gender (including by self-declaration) enhanced privacy rights are granted that create safeguarding loopholes.

NB: The "Sarah Champion Sex Offender Name Change Amendment" is frankly useless and digital identities not only perpetuate existing issues, but create new risk. But more on that later.

We asked FOIAs of all forces nationally and the replies we received revealed serious safeguarding loopholes.

We had hoped to complete and publish a report, but sadly this is no longer possible.

We hope that other organisations, who operate from a safeguarding-first perspective, will tackle this important, and currently overlooked, issue.

In 2022 we published our report DBS Checks & Identity Verification: Safeguarding Loopholes Created by Changes of Identity.

You can read it here:

https://kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and-identity-verification-pdf/

We also published a Supplementary Document on Disclosure Scotland, which you can read here:

https://kpssinfo.org/disclosure-scotland-checks-pdf/

In these reports we set out the safeguarding loopholes that are created when individuals change gender, including by self-declaration, as part of changing their identity. This is because of the enhanced individual privacy rights that are awarded to anyone who changes gender, regardless of whether they are issued with a GRC (not that restricting these enhanced privacy rights to GRC holders only is any sort of solution for safeguarding).

The Disclosure and Barring Service plays a vital and unique role in safeguarding. By processing criminal record checks for individuals who have applied to work in roles where safeguarding considerations apply, the DBS allows organisations to access key information that will assist them in making safer recruiting decisions. The ability of a DBS check to play this role in safeguarding rests entirely on the relevance, completeness and accuracy of the information returned and displayed on the DBS certificate.

In December 2003, Ian Huntley was convicted of the murders of two 10-year old girls, Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. At the time of committing the murders, Huntley had been employed at a local college as a caretaker, a position that facilitated his access to children. Although he had previously come into contact with the police over alleged sexual offences on many occasions, this information had not been disclosed during the vetting check carried out at the time of his appointment.

It is no exaggeration to say that the murders of the two girls and the subsequent discovery that Huntley should, and could, have been prevented from taking up the role of caretaker had a profound effect throughout the country. In 2004, following an independent inquiry, the Bichard Inquiry Report was published. This concluded that there had been extensive omissions and failures in the vetting process.

Significantly, Huntley had been able to change his name by deed poll to Ian Nixon and the criminal record check he underwent had only been carried out against this new identity. By presenting a new identity, Huntley had successfully severed the link with his existing police records meaning that the records held against the name ‘Ian Huntley’ were not disclosed.

Eighteen years later and safeguarding loopholes created where applicants submit identity documents for DBS checks that display a new identity remain.

Although the government has acknowledged the safeguarding loophole created where registered sex offenders are able to change their name by deed poll, the ability to change identity in a more fundamental way, by simultaneously changing both name and gender, remains unaddressed. Any individual can easily, and for any reason, change their name and gender on documents commonly used to establish identity via a process of self-declaration. These documents, that include passport and driving licence, can be presented for the purposes of a DBS check and will show the individual’s new name and their acquired gender instead of, and as opposite to, their sex.

The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to individuals who change their gender when changing their identity. These are exceptional rights that are only granted to individuals from this group. The result is that identity verification is compromised, meaning that there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete.

These exceptional privacy rights also allow an applicant who has changed gender to request that all their previous names are withheld from the DBS certificate that is issued. This right to conceal previous identities is not given to anyone else: disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding and DBS certificates issued to all other individuals display all other names the applicant has used.

Applicants who change their gender are also permitted to conceal their sex and the DBS certificate issued will display their acquired gender instead. This right is not granted to any other individual: the importance of sex to safeguarding means that for all other applicants, their sex is always displayed.

These are all serious risks to safeguarding that compromise the validity and reliability of the DBS regime.

As digital identities are rolled out, including for DBS checks, the risk is that the existing loopholes will simply be perpetuated in the digital realm. In the drive for convenience and ease of use, digital identities also risk creating a new safeguarding loophole. In-person identity verification acts as a safeguarding protection in and of itself, yet digital identities can be shared remotely, meaning that this important step is removed.

The current operation of the DBS regime means that identity verification is compromised and organisations requesting DBS checks cannot have confidence in the information that is disclosed. In order to close these existing loopholes, we propose three recommendations:

• Mandatory use of National Insurance numbers for DBS checks and all identity changes
• DBS certificates display sex registered at birth
• DBS certificates display other names used for all applicants, including those who have changed gender as part of changing identity

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.