Jk takes on the police

[Hoardasurass]

JK Rowling is taking on the police over transwomen being allowed to strip search women, she's said that she'll fund the legal fees of any women who's strip searched by a man and wants to sue 😍

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/celebrity-news/jk-rowling-promises-pay-court-35170667?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Good for her! It’s further proof of how far we have to go, despite the SC judgement. I am sure any woman would win in such circumstances.

She’s a force to be reckoned with 🥰 💪

Can’t believe all this “waiting for new guidance” how can it be any clearer?

In the Mail too. Good for her! It's indefensible. What kind of person believes in a 'right' for a man to assault a woman as a means of expressing his inner self? And wtf are they doing employed in a responsible public service post? They can't even claim the law is uncertain any more, they are choosing to ignore the law in active, purposeful choice against women.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14677801/JK-Rowling-FUND-womans-case-sue-police-stripe-search.html

From the Mail article:

'Rank-and-file officers – especially women – are said to be fuming at the leadership's response.

One Northumbria officer said: 'The messaging we're getting as officers reveals a stunning lack of urgency. There's no rush to review policy.'

She described the NPCC's stance as: 'Keep calm and carry on – we hate this ruling and are looking at options to circumvent it.'

A female officer said the lack of acknowledgement for women's concerns made her feel like she 'just doesn't matter at all.'

She added: 'There is no contrition. No recognition of the harm done to women's rights and the homophobia demonstrated by the embrace of gender ideology and the conflation of sex and gender.'

Women don't matter do they? Bodies: men for the use of. It's abhorrent.

Thank goodness we have JKR on our side...

Has JKR been redeemed and no longer vilified for her stance on trans people ?

I sort of see their point on this. I don’t think the Supreme Court Ruling changed anything legally regarding police search policies.

The law has always been clear even under the previous, incorrect, interpretation of the equality act that a single sex exemption could be used to exclude trans officers from searching someone who wasn’t the same biological sex. The polices’ choice to prioritise trans officers’ desires over dignity and common sense was a clear “fuck you” to women.

The Supreme Court ruling was clear. But one of the things it was clear about was that it was limited to the use of “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act.

The powers for police to strip search and the requirement for same sex officers to do the search do not stem from the Equality Act, they stems from PACE. PACE has a statutory instrument that includes direction for which sex officer should search a trans person. This state, basically, that for the purposes of sex the officer searching a trans detainee should be chosen according to the trans person’s certificated sex. But it does not make any mention of how a trans officer should be categorized for these purposes. So the GRC changing sex for all legal purposes bit could well be considered to apply.

This leaves forces with only the single sex exemption to rely on in order to legally exclude trans officers. And they could have applied that in the past as easily as they can today.

I’m not suggesting here that the police are right to have a policy that allows trans identified officers to search someone of the opposite sex. I think an indirect discrimination claim could win against them. Just pointing out that I don’t think the Supreme Court ruling materially changed the understanding of the laws that apply.

Edited for spag.

The last phrase is exactly how I feel.

I'm 21 and my teenage years were marked by men obsessing over my body. Whether seriously or in fun, my body seemed (to me) to be "the talk of the town" at home and school and college.
OK I'm sure many many young women feel the same. The trouble is that we KNOW that in the vast majority of cases it's true - we are just bodies to men, who seem to think that a woman's body is public property to be treated in whatever way a man feels fit.

Sorry but it's a pet peeve of mine.

Internationally, no. It’s all signing open letters and publicly condemning.

Some of these people would have loved the Cultural Revolution.

Surely since the SC has provided a clarification of existing law this police policy has always been illegal and anyone who has been searched by the wrong sex officer under their inclusive guidelines would have a strong case against them if they wanted to progress it.

Just a thought 🙂

I think that’s a very good point @Raquelos

Officers in Sussex were told the 'complexities of this ruling are far greater than has been publicly acknowledged.'

how can that even be? What are they not acknowledging, for God sake? They couldn't 'publicly acknowledge' more if their lives depended on it. And according to them, they do!

It's simple, men cannot strip search a woman.

The problem with the police is, they're too shit scared to tell the men that.

You'd think while they waited for guidance, the most simple and protective thing for all, trans officers included, would be to say in the interim, same sex searches only.

But no.

Yes, I'd love to see a legal bod take a look at that.

The law was being broken for years. And it's my understanding that ignorance is not a defence.

So that would be an illegal search? Would it be assault?

Does that mean that anything uncovered during that search would've been inadmissible? (courtroom dramas are supplying all my vocab, obvs).

And if it is all inadmissible, are all the trials invalid?

I'd so love to see this pick up speed!

If even one person went to court, the urgent change in policy across the board would be so quick, it would give you whiplash.

gotta let that misogyny leak out somewhere

Thank goodness for JK. A truly decent lady.

We're so lucky to have JK Rowling!

JKR for PM!

That's a really interesting point. I never thought of it that way.

I'm pretty sure a court case would give them some 'clarity'...

It's only a technical point.

The EA2010 does not apply, agreed, but the reasoning behind sex meaning sex holds for the PACE provisions as well. It's biological sex that matters in this case - a woman is undressed, she can reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex. Officers have to be of the same sex as the person they are strip-searching or intimately searching, according to PACE Code C. The human rights at play are not those of the officer, but of the detainee, whose body is being touched in a way that would be sexual assault were it not permitted by PACE. The British Transport Police have conceded the point (although they are trying to continue to implement the "same gender" policy covertly) and the Police forces should too. Not to do so is an infringement of the right to privacy, dignity and safety of the detainee.

Very early on we didn't.
She used to cave in alto all the crazy demands, but I think at some point she realised it was never enough...

Then she "educated herself"....

And here we are.

I took am pleased she stepped up, she could have don't what so many others in the spotlight do and stepped down.

But she has always been one for standing her ground. She is amazing for that.

That seems clear on the rights of biological women to not be searched by men.

What about the male prisoners who want to be searched by women though? Is it sex discrimination against female officers to require them to search men, who in many cases will be getting a sexual thrill from the experience?

I agree that it’s also critical to put female officers in the situation where they are expected to strip search men

I have a friend who works in the police and I asked them to check their actual policy as they were saying after the SC ruling the message to officers was “policy still stands, resources for help here”

it’s biological sex only. Male can only search male, female can only search female.

what would happen if a trans person requested an opposite sex search I have no idea. Find a trans officer? Send in a same sex officer that temporarily “identifies” as the opposite sex?

anyway i thought that interesting, and I wonder what other forces actual policies are or whether it’s all being “seen to be inclusive”.