Police double down - male officers allowed to search women

[Leafstamp]

To paraphrase a few big names from Twitter, police are proposing to let their male officers sexually assault women in certain circumstances (ie if they have a GRC).

You can read the full article on the archive site, but here’s an extract.

Documents seen by The Telegraph state: “The recommendation from the NPCC Lead for LGBTQ + is that a trans officer searches a person consistent with the officer’s sex as established by a gender recognition certificate [GRC].”

These proposals will be considered next month by the full NPCC before becoming official policy.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/24/trans-police-officers-to-be-allowed-to-strip-search-women/

Sick fucks

So males can search girls too? Bad enough women.

It's just awful

But the police have to, don't they, following the A case?

publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/chief-1.htm

Who are the big names on Twitter, out of curiosity? I've not been on since Musk completed its descent into a complete hellhole.

Do you have a share link to the article?

Although I suppose they could try to take the position that only those who pass can do it, but I don't know how they would assess that properly!

It's a terrible judgment.

Sorry, big names was probably the wrong phrase. I meant larger GC accounts - like Maya Forstater, We Are Fair Cop etc - it was the latter I was mainly paraphrasing

Not sure if MN allows it but here’s the archive article archive.ph/Yluc6

I haven’t come across this case, is there an easy to read write up about it somewhere?

I’m not sure that case proves a point. The police didn’t employ the person because they thought that the person was too concerned that they being trans would come out (due to not doing the searches). However, the last paragraph sums up that the TS couldn’t insist that their transexuality was kept confidential in all circumstances. The TS had a right to privacy where possible but not if it meant acting unlawfully. The last paragraph is a good summing up.

The very idea that the colleagues of a TIM wouldn't clock his trans status unless it was made evident by having to get an actual female officer to undertake searches. Ha!

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Thanks @Leafstamp. How do we support Sex Matters in their challenge?

SO much credence is being given to individuals' "belief" they are born in the wrong body. It's high time that belief was closely examined to see if it's WORIADS.

[ETA from the post now above mine maybe Leafstamp already said this but at a glance I don't see it!] This may be a relevant place to remind everyone that Sex Matters is seeking a judicial review of British Transport Police’s searching policy. They are crowdfunding, and the crowdfunder is now on their front page, sex-matters dot org - I'll put it that way so as not to be posting a crowdfunding link! They've so far raised £33k of the £40k needed. BTP is not "the police" of course, but the relevance is obvious and supporting this seems like a sensible path to me. As part of the background to the case, they write:

In December 2021, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) approved a policy paper giving guidance that officers should be permitted to search suspects of the opposite sex if they self-identified as the same “gender” as the person being searched. This covered both “more thorough” pat-down searches and “exposure of intimate parts” (EIP) or strip-searches. A report by the Women’s Rights Network (WRN), State Sanctioned Sexual Assault, found that 35 forces had implemented this policy. There was public outrage and the guidance was withdrawn in January 2024. Individual police forces were told to develop their own policies.

BTP's policy, which they are aiming to get reviewed, is based on GRC.

Yes, it would potentially seem that that the first two judges only considered it lawful if the victim was unable to tell. The third judge however, stated

”This is so even though, in my view, section 54(9) of PACE means that it would have been unlawful for Ms A to search female suspects and in practice she could not have searched — and indeed would not have wanted to search — male suspects.”

Interesting comment on motivation there.

This is the lie that all the law is built upon - that the privacy of these men must be protected as no one can tell.

Good question re support. The crowdfunded is one way.

Meanwhile, what about writing to the NPCC?

www.npcc.police.uk/contact-us/

Who IS the NPCC lead for LGBTQIA++ hands knees and boompsadaisy group who is recommending this, exactly?

Good point @AlisonDonut

Given the MAJOR concerns about male police officers and their attitudes to females, including the egregious levels of sexual assault allegations (and proven cases) you’d be forgiven for thinking the police would be falling over themselves to demonstrate addressing these issues across the board.
This nonsense just emphasises the reasons why women continue to be let down by the police and by those who govern their practices.

I always come back to the rights of women prisoners of war. I can only view this as not just a very retrograde step in the fight for women's equality but a stamping out of anything that has been won by women.

Which man is making this decision, I wonder what colour lipstick he wears.

The power of the unions in their quest for male domination is truly astounding. Not usually one to be offensive but this really does get me so very angry.

Such a good point. It's beginning to appear that the police haven't done enough to root out the predators in their midst as some of them appear to have been able to access seniority and policy writing. Insisting that men must be allowed to sexually assault girls and women under the guise of police procedure and the possession of a lady ticket demonstrates a level of sexual criminality. These people shouldn't be in uniform - they're a danger to girls and women.

CC vanessa Jardine in Northumbria Police who was in WMP when the firearms officer declared himself trans.

It's abhorrent and in light of updates thinking on both trans issues and searching generally (see GMP and the mess they made around strip searching vulnerable detainees) I would like NPCC to review this decision.

Surely we can't have 43 forces all doing something different when talking about human rights.

Reading the article, I am going to write to both my local Chief Constable and would suggest as many of us do the same as it is going to the full NPCC council.

Citing the above case and also cases of strip searching children.

What would happen if they allowed a male with GRC to strip search a female child? FFS

Am fuming about this.

Also contacting SEEN in policing to ensure their voice will be heard in the considerations

This seems to be another example of how, if more organisations (ie men) were concerned about women's sex based rights that the police would use the SSE of the EA.

ie situation where even a TW with a GRC would not be acceptable in the "provision of a service for women".

So as is usual now the default as spread by Stonewall and others which is that TW rights alwasy take precedence of biological women's rights.

Although I am sure that like the NHS the police will also argue that it isn't economic for them to make available police women (biological) which is usually the arguement from the NHS.

This discusses it and is not too difficult to digest I think

www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/28/a-v-chief-constable-of-west-yorkshire-and-the-transformed-landscape-of-consent/

CC vanessa Jardine in Northumbria Police who was in WMP when the firearms officer declared himself trans.

Ugh, she is awful.