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

Yes, it is not really whether placing a man in a supposedly female cell ( if such a thing exists) is a big issue or not; what really is an issue is the attitude towards the ruling that this police force is taking. An attitude which is not only in defiance of the law, but also an attitude that offers little confidence that they can be trusted to abide by the ruling in those situations in which single sex applications/accommodations really do matter.

This all seems very bizarre.

As pps have said: these are enclosed single units, many stations don't have the luxury of multiple sections of these.

My question would be in these circumstances, why did Staffordshire decide it was necessary in the first place to invoke the legal discrimination to create 'women only cells' if this is in fact what they are - because those reasons suggest that they had needs and challenges that could only be met for women if these were provided. That's why you label something as 'women's'.

So if they've invoked that legal terminology because of a specific need/reason to separate the sexes, ok, but women then does have to mean women. Obviously. Because otherwise the provision is rendered pointless and loses its legal protection to exist. I wonder what those needs and reasons are.

Are they in fact meaning vulnerable people cells, where they're trying to provide an escape from shouting/scary/drunk/violent prisoners which would terrify the hell out of many? Vulnerable people obvs including both sexes?

Wtf is this all about? Huge amount of info missing.