The High Court has ruled that trans suspects may lawfully request a strip-search by an officer of their ‘lived-in gender’. The Telegraph has the story:
The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) advice says that biological men who identify as women can request a female officer to strip-search them, adding that “efforts will be made” to find an officer of their “lived-in gender”.
Sex Matters, the women’s rights group, brought legal action against the NPCC, arguing that the law was clear that strip-searches must always be conducted by someone of the same sex, regardless of how they identify.
But on Friday, the High Court ruled that police officers can lawfully strip-search trans people of a different sex, as long as both sides consent.
The NPCC advice on strip-searches states that “all members of the public” be treated with “fairness, dignity and respect, including the trans community”.
It adds that, whenever “operationally viable”, if “an individual whose lived-in gender is not the same as their biological sex expresses a preference to be searched by an officer of their lived gender, efforts will be made to ensure an appropriate officer is identified to conduct the search”.
The policy continues: “In such circumstances, the search would require the written consent of the authorising officer, the person detained and the particular officer/s conducting the search.”
While the guidance does say that female officers can refuse to search a trans woman, Sex Matters argued that female officers would fear being labelled “transphobic” if they did, which could harm their careers. …
Maya Forstater, the Chief Executive of Sex Matters, said the charity was “extremely disappointed” by the ruling and would be trying to appeal it.
She said: “Our case seeks to protect the rule of law.
“If Parliament had wanted to allow people in custody to request to be strip-searched by an officer of the opposite sex, it would have written this into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which governs the way searches are carried out.
“It didn’t, and it is not for the NPCC or individual police forces to seek to subvert the law by creating a shadow searching regime.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Simple – since we are to frolic in the fantasy World of make-believe, assign a male officer to a temporary to the same “lived-in gender” to search them.
And it’s about time the judiciary were put in lunatic asylums.
The answer to this conundrum is clear.
When a male pervert needs to be strip searched, he should choose from being searched by a trained male officer, or by a trained female pervert officer.
He might be warned that the latter option might entail a long wait for logistical reasons.
And obviously , femail pervert detainees should be given the similar alternatives.
It is a shame there is no discussion about the total lack of police. But plenty of concern about the one trans person who wants whatever. Doyou see it. Ignore the real problem, no police and spend all our money and time to on one trans person. Makes sense.
From reading the article it would appear that the “confused person” can request they’re strip searched by an officer of the opposite sex. But said officers do not have to agree to do it. So Susie can ask for PC Janet to search round the back & under her hairy nut sack, but he’ll probably get PC Simon pulling the gloves on.
Surely they mean autogynephiles?
I’m sure there will be 6’5 trans coppers with moustaches and fake tits in every police station for just this eventuality.
men deciding again what constitutes a woman.
its just another demonstration of how people high up in the public sector hate the biological female
“Trans Suspects Can Still Request Female Strip-Search, High Court Rules”
And does the female officer have the right to refuse? Rights should go both ways!
Active (legislated/invented) Rights do not go both ways, that’s the problem with them, unlike passive, discovered Common Law Rights which do.
With active Right there is an obligation – usually on the State and its agents – to provide that Right absolutely irrespective of the passive Rights of another.
Under Common Law the Right is relative to the Rights of others. No Right may be enjoyed at the expense of another – usually illustrated by A’s Right to swing his fist stop where B’s nose starts.
It is why the “Right” of some scumbag “asylum” seeker, trumps the Rights of local people to live in peace and security.