Staffordshire Police force defies trans ruling to put biological men in women’s cells

[IwantToRetire]

A police force is placing biological men in women’s cells despite the Supreme Court ruling that transgender women are not legally women.

Staffordshire Police says its custody policy means “detainees may be placed in accommodation consistent with their gender identity”, The Telegraph can reveal.

That means biological men who identify as transgender women can be placed in women’s-only custody cells.

The force introduced the rules in the wake of last April’s Supreme Court ruling that sex in equality law refers to biological sex, which has been widely interpreted as meaning that biological men cannot use female single-sex facilities.

Its revised policies commit to allowing a person to self-identify their chosen gender.

Staffordshire Police has also been accused of providing “contradictory” guidance on whether an officer of the opposite sex can carry out strip searches.

Cathy Larkman, a director of the Women’s Rights Network and a retired police superintendent, said: “These policies do not comply with the Supreme Court judgment, and they indicate a level of ignorance with the law and a disregard for the rights of women that is deeply concerning.” ...

Article continues at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/26/police-force-defies-trans-ruling-biological-men-women-cells/

And at https://archive.is/TRpnd

Agree that it’s the custody policy means “detainees may be placed in accommodation consistent with their gender identity" bit that’s problematic.

Phrasing it such sends the message that the SC ruling will be deliberately circumvented. Unhelpful virtue signalling that could further undermine women’s trust in the police / police procedures (if it’s possible to have any less trust than currently).

If they were opting to use ‘women’s’ cells for younger vulnerable, possibly ND, GNC, males, I wouldn’t see this as a problem on a case by case basis as and only if they’re single occupancy.

However, if they were using such cells for the likes of that 27 year old in the Florida police video, then thats unfair to put a possibly out of control TiM in next to women just for appeasement alongside unnecessary virtue signalling.

You keep dismissing, as inconsequential or silly, other people's perspectives, rather than simply stating your own. I guess this is what irritates.

This is just gaslighting!

So. A Police Force is defying the law?

Duly noted. (especially by criminals no doubt).

If someone posts saying something is wrong or important and I post saying that I don't agree that it's wrong or important then that IS stating my own perspective.

You're just irritated at being disagreed with.

Time out please!

I'm just going to say it out loud. At this point I have to believe someone at the top is getting bribed/payments/incentive to do this. A police force flagrantly flouting the law, There can be no other excuse. I can't believe your average cop cares one way or the other about this issue - certainly not enough to break the very laws they're supposed to be enforcing.

I think this comes from being faced every day with the fact that all sorts of institutions let alone politicians and police, really do seem to think as it is about women's rights we dont have to bother.

Easier to think it is about bribery or something, rather than the fact that in the 21st century in the UK women really do have no status!

No, I was late to the thread and was simply observing its dynamics. You have been putting people's views down as being silly or as inconsequential, rather than just stating your own perspective. That is why you've had several reactions. There are ways of disagreeing that don't involve put-downs.

I have checked back my posts on this thread and I do not agree with you that I have done any more than state my own feelings.

Please feel free to report me if you think I have broken any MN guidelines.

And then if they don't agree with you please get off my back for writing my own opinions just because you don't like them.

Plus as we are all ‘non binary’ how will that work out ?

Can we be clear that what is being written about is single person use cells. And that people who know have posted that although the ideal is for these to be on separate corridors, many police stations will not have cells in that configuration, so it can't be done anyway.

And since we have full doors on cells in this country, not gates, and certainly not cages as there are in other countries, I find it difficult to see what the actual issue is here, other than an extraordinarily clunky statement by the police force concerned.

She really hasn't. She said she couldn't get exercised about this. That isn't saying that no-one else is entitled to get exercised, and it comes nowhere near saying people's views are silly. She's expressing a view in the same way as several other people have expressed theirs.

Well no, they aren't.

If this guidance is something no one should be worried about because the cells are single occupancy then why is there any need for the guidance to say people can be housed based on gender identity rather than sex.

If the cells are single occupancy why is there any issue with placing trans people in the cells designated for their sex.

There seem to be a LOT of people crossly pointing out that the detention cells are single sex only so mixed sex wouldn't ever happen.

Rightio, in which case then there is no problem in updating the guidance to say as much then, is there?

@Imdunfer I often find your posts rub me up the wrong way. This is a 'me' problem. Please carry on as you are.

Well, quite. The whole policy sounds garbled. For example, wtf does this mean?:

"....Where there is any dispute regarding a detainee’s sex, searches are conducted according to the detainee’s biological sex."

Also, there is no risk because detainees are kept in separate cells but also failure to accommodate in an appropriate location creates safety risks. So is there a risk or isn't there? It would be useful to see the policy itself rather than DT's extracts, but having read several of the NHS policies I'm not sure that it would make things any clearer.

I'm sorry that my posts do that, I'm open to polite suggestions as to wording that won't rub you up the wrong way without being told that I can't give my own opinions on topics. I find most people who get annoyed by my posts simply don't like being disagreed with. I've been on forums a long, long time, it's a repeating theme.

I worked in Custody for 10yrs

There aren't male/female cells, there are just cells

Never in all that time did we place two arrested people in the same cell

Each cell usually has one bed, one toilet

So where are we as a society if the police are disregarding the law?

Can you also confirm that nobody in one cell can see anyone in another cell because there are no windows, nor can they see anyone being walked up the corridor to another cell unless the door is open at the time?

Staffordshire's biggest detention unit according to Google has 50 cells spilt into male, female and youth. I suspect that exclusively women officers normally staff the female ones and that's the only material difference. So what they seem to be saying, very badly, is that with a transgender male they might put him on the corridor policed by women. Since the cells are all separate and identical, this changes nothing for the women who are already there. No women's rights will have been affected, the single sex space is the cell they are in, not the police detention centre.

I'm not in the business of reporting people's posts just because there is disagreement.

You've no idea what my perspective or view is on the matter of this thread because I have not commented on it.

Then why does Staffordshire Police say that "its custody policy means “detainees may be placed in accommodation consistent with their gender identity”?

Well, either whether they file people by sex or by gender makes a practical difference, or it doesn't. I'm not a police officer, so I wouldn't know.
If it does, they have announced that they will be breaking the law.
If it doesn't, they are performatively signalling their cavalier attitude to the law for the sake of it.
Either way, it's not a good look.