Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

Yes, and they shouldn't because this is male violence and it should be reported and recorded as such.

Then take it up with Thames Valley Police. I'd say that the only media source, local paper, reporting the case went with what issued by the police. Changing it to match what was given in court, three days later.

Did you know that multiple child killer Lucy Letby has the keys to her own prison cell?
She's in the same prison as the UK's youngest convicted double murderer.

 

[monkers]

You made an assertion without evidence. Where is the evidence? Because the government's own hearings seem to say very differently.

You just looked at the last ten. There didn't happen to be many cases in that small sample, but if you look further back you can find multiple entries of women teachers enticing teenagers to their homes and engaging in sexual acts.

I said an astonishing number. That's a personal statement, because it relies upon how many cases there are, and how many I would assume there. I was astonished by the number, if you are not, that's a matter for you.

 

[monkers]

You've already admitted this stat is misleading.

The table could be misleading at first sight. I already told you I was leading you by the nose to realising that 70% claim by Andy was not just misleading but false. It was necessary because between the two of you were telling lies about trans women (again).

You didn't like it because your ongoing lies continue to be busted. Even when you know something isn't true you continue to parrot it in the most insulting way to trans people. The true mark of the bigot.

Stating that 55% of female arrests are for violence is not misleading. It is the real stat from the Ministry of Justice. It is a true 'headline stat' just like the headline stat from the Daily Telegraph which is false.

There is something that skews the figures for male and female crime. That is this modern trend for devolvement of lower level crime to other authorities. For example, the DVLA, the Highways Agency, and the TVLA. The number of people who end up with being sentenced to prison for not having a TV licence is pretty scary. Actually I've just read that part of your post, and see that you've covered it. So we agree the point.

 

[monkers]

No, women's prisons aren't nice places. Neither are men's. That's the nature of prisons. They aren't full of women who have committed violent or sexual crimes though.

You are constantly making assertions that you can't follow up with evidence.

Once again you are inventing stuff and saying that I said it. I am not saying that all women prisoners are committed for assault of sexual offences, and never have. That is not the case. But now you agree, I think for the first time, that women's prisons are not safe spaces. They never have been, and likely never will be.

I have continued to say that there is evidence that while men are committed to prison for violence, while women tend to get off. If you take the trouble to think stuff through instead of your warrior keyboard mode, you'll see the evidence is to be seen in what I have said. The arrest rate for female violence is high because there are so many repeat offenders who are not committed to prison. It is the case the judges will always refrain for imprisoning women because they are much more likely to have caring duties / roles / responsibilities. This is certain to skew prison population by sex stats.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Then take it up with Thames Valley Police. I'd say that the only media source, local paper, reporting the case went with what issued by the police. Changing it to match what was given in court, three days later.

Plenty of people are taking it up, thanks. It's misleading the public and distorting the stats.

Did you know that multiple child killer Lucy Letby has the keys to her own prison cell?
She's in the same prison as the UK's youngest convicted double murderer.

Take it up with the MOJ.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You just looked at the last ten. There didn't happen to be many cases in that small sample, but if you look further back you can find multiple entries of women teachers enticing teenagers to their homes and engaging in sexual acts.

That was the first 12. The next ones aren't any different - people can read them all, there's scores on that link. More claims without any evidence.

I said an astonishing number. That's a personal statement, because it relies upon how many cases there are, and how many I would assume there. I was astonished by the number, if you are not, that's a matter for you.

How many is an astonishing number? Surely it should be at least more than 75% of cases, to reflect that 75% of teachers are women? It isn't. Just more bs opinion presented as facts.

What's the point of your ridiculous gymnastics to try to get people to believe women are as violent as men? It has one purpose only: to make the case that if women are violent too it won't matter that men are allowed in their toilets, changing rooms, or prisons. It's not supported by the facts or the data and we all know it's not true.

 

[Deleted member 159]

I didn't mean to insult.

You do it in virtually every post

 

[monkers]

That was the first 12. The next ones aren't any different - people can read them all, there's scores on that link. More claims without any evidence.



How many is an astonishing number? Surely it should be at least more than 75% of cases, to reflect that 75% of teachers are women? It isn't. Just more bs opinion presented as facts.

What's the point of your ridiculous gymnastics to try to get people to believe women are as violent as men? It has one purpose only: to make the case that if women are violent too it won't matter that men are allowed in their toilets, changing rooms, or prisons. It's not supported by the facts or the data and we all know it's not true.

My point is not to suggest that women are more violent than men. But you are so very farking stupid that you persist in saying so. You are an utter fraud.

I have said repeatedly more men are arrested and convicted for violence than women. We all know that.

What is happening is that I am pushing back against the idea that women are not violent. They are, just less so than men.
Women's prisons are not safe spaces. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Further. Transgender people and trans people are not in the same prison cohort. Trans people with a GRC are in the same cohort as cisgender people. There is no data to suggest that trans women are more violent than cis women. This is a fiction.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that trans women have male patterns of criminality, or are violent, or commit sexual offences - YOU NEED EVIDENCE. Despite repeated requests for evidence, you have none.

We've looked at the Ministry of Justice data for the number of trans prisoners with a GRC. All we know is that there are 12 trans people with a GRC in prison - for all we know they might all be trans men (though I doubt that). We do not know the offences they have committed.

You are disparaging towards this group with no foundation in evidence - which is why you should stop, because it points to nothing other than your bigotry.

 

[multitool]

Just checking in to see where we are.

Has there been a sudden outbreak of violence and sexual assaults by trans women against females?

No?

Still not?

Oh.

 

[classic33]

Plenty of people are taking it up, thanks. It's misleading the public and distorting the stats.

And you don't want to see women being recorded as being sex offenders. It'd skew the image of women as being completely innocent and incapable of any wrongdoing.
If the person is legally a woman then how is that distorting the stats. You don't like the law, but it gives you no right to abuse it.

Take it up with the MOJ.

The families of the children she killed are doing just that. Her latest appeal against her conviction started about a month ago.

Hardly a prison when the prisoners have a set of keys though.

 

[AuroraSaab]

My point is not to suggest that women are more violent than men. But you are so very farking stupid that you persist in saying so. You are an utter fraud.
I have said repeatedly more men are arrested and convicted for violence than women. We all know that.

You've repeatedly tried to suggest that women offend at similar rates. They don't.

What is happening is that I am pushing back against the idea that women are not violent. They are, just less so than men.

Massively less so. Even more true of sexual offending.

Further. Transgender people and trans people are not in the same prison cohort. Trans people with a GRC are in the same cohort as cisgender people. There is no data to suggest that trans women are more violent than cis women. This is a fiction.

Simply not true. We don't have data for the 11 with GRC's so we don't know how they compare. For the 200 plus transgender offenders without GRC's we know that the transwomen offend at the same rate as other men.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that trans women have male patterns of criminality, or are violent, or commit sexual offences - YOU NEED EVIDENCE. Despite repeated requests for evidence, you have none.

I've given you plenty of stats and research. What you've now decided to do is pretend the 268 recorded as transgender aren't actually transgender. Only the 11 with GRC's are.

We've looked at the Ministry of Justice data for the number of trans prisoners with a GRC. All we know is that there are 12 trans people with a GRC in prison - for all we know they might all be trans men (though I doubt that). We do not know the offences they have committed.

And the other 268? They aren't trans now? Even though they say they are trans? Even though they are recorded as trans by the MOJ?

This is just gymnastics, now saying only those with a GRC are trans.

You are disparaging towards this group with no foundation in evidence - which is why you should stop, because it points to nothing other than your bigotry.

What it points to is that they offend at the same as other men, if not worse. There is no reason to treat them differently than other men.

 

[Deleted member 159]

And you don't want to see women being recorded as being sex offenders

They are not women, they are men pretending to be women. When convicted, the crime should be recorded as a male, who went to a male prison. The press should report it as a male who committed the crime

 

[AuroraSaab]

And you don't want to see women being recorded as being sex offenders. It'd skew the image of women as being completely innocent and incapable of any wrongdoing.

I'm happy to see women recorded in the women's stats and men in the men's.

If the person is legally a woman then how is that distorting the stats. You don't like the law, but it gives you no right to abuse it.

Because they are men. It's not law that says those without a GRC should be reported as, or recorded as, their gender identity.

In fact the police have just been told again to record those without a GRC as their birth sex. No law change required.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...are convicted,gender, Downing Street has said.

 

[Deleted member 159]

What is happening is that I am pushing back against the idea that women are not violent

Everyone knows that, but not at the same rates as men

Women's prisons are not safe spaces. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Really,
there are going to be some violent women in prison, which makes them unsafe for most other women inmates.

How many women are in prison currently?
what is the percentage of violent crimes for the female prison population?

How many men are in prison currently?
what is the percentage of violent crimes for the male prison population?

 

[monkers]

Simply not true. We don't have data for the 11 with GRC's so we don't know how they compare. For the 200 plus transgender offenders without GRC's we know that the transwomen offend at the same rate as other men.

You can't simply say the same as me, then insist you are right and I am wrong. It's bonkers.

The claim was the 70% of trans people are locked up for sex offences. You then tried to defend the claim made by Andy by posting nonsense from the Daily Diatribe. Now you agree there is no evidence for this. Unbelievable.