by ·0 Comments

This isn’t really something that I’d be happy running with myself as don’t really know that much about the topic, but based on a comment posted by Zoe Brain in an earlier blog post, I included a question about Intersexed prisoners in a Freedom of Information request I was submitting anyway. Someone more active with this sort of thing may want to take an interest in the response I received, so I thought I’d throw it out there…

I’d asked if prison service guidelines on “transsexual prisoners” were intended to include intersexed prisoners too. The answer – or non-answer – is interesting as it leads me to believe the Prison Service Equalities Group don’t know themselves. All they could do was refer me (Twice, I asked for a review the first time) to the Department of Health!

They did point at their definition of Transsexual, which states it includes anyone “who lives or proposes to live in the gender opposite to the one assigned at birth…” and that they “…may or may not have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria”. (My emphasis)

This sounds like a good thing from the outset, in that you don’t need to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (Which as I understand it, someone Intersexed who has “transitioned” from their gender-assigned-at-birth would not have) to get some protection under this policy. The downside is that you’re not fully covered unless you have a GRC, which you can’t get without the gender dysphoria diagnosis, so it sounds as if the policy probably isn’t that good after all…

(Style question: Is “Intersexed prisoners”, capital I and including the “…ed” correct for UK usage?)

by ·4 Comments

Likely of interest to few people, but I try to get parliamentary business about Trans issues “out there” as it’s otherwise very poorly reported.

Following a Statutory Instrument committee yesterday, the list of “approved countries and territories” under the Gender Recognition Act has been updated for the first time since the act was passed in 2005. What this basically means is that if you have gender recognition in one of these countries, you can get a UK GRC without needing all the proof and paperwork.

The new list is here and the following countries have been added compared to the old list:

by ·0 Comments

In response to a Freedom of Information request about Prison Service consultations, an odd discrepancy arose: Caroline Lucas MP asked the same question in parliament and received a different response.

This doesn’t sound like a major issue as the differences between the two lists – organisations consulted over a particular policy change – seem minor, being just one organisation missing from the parliamentary answer. Still, the Trans community is not that large. How comprehensive a consultation can be regarded as can easily turn on if a single organisation, particularly one the size of GIRES, has been included in that consultation.

So, an internal review was requested and in due course a reply is received: The Freedom of Information request was handled correctly in the first place. Despite the discrepancy with the parliamentary answer, “Both responses are accurate“.

How exactly does that work? “The response provided to parliament was abbreviated and formatted for clarity and brevity.”

I wonder how many other answers to written parliamentary questions have been “abbreviated for clarity and brevity”. Particularly where the “clarified” version hides information the minister concerned would rather not reveal?

(P.S. I am still not clear if the answer to my FoI request is accurate – it may be that the parliamentary version is the correct one. I shall check with GIRES as I believe they were not in fact consulted)

by ·3 Comments

In the heat of the moment yesterday, I did not explain the issue well so here’s the story. If you already know the issues, scroll down and there’s a list of things you can do to help!

West Midlands Police have imposed a “security vetting” procedure on attendees of the Liberal Democrat Autumn conference this year, which the Federal Conference Committee have (After some wrangling with WMP, it appears) agreed to. This is new and hasn’t been in place before and there has been no reason given for the increased security measures or what threat they are designed to deal with. Briefly, as I see it there are four issues:

1) Members may be barred from attending without due process. There is an established and open process for barring members from the party and it should not be left in the hands of the police.
2) Police will be keeping the information gathered indefinitely and share it with other police forces. (Yes, they’re keeping a database of political activists’s passports, NI numbers and driving licences)
3) It creates problems for various marginalised groups: Anyone under the age of 16, (No driving licence or NI number) anyone foreign who has never worked in the UK (No UK passport or NI number) and anyone transgendered or who might otherwise have ID in multiple names. (Anyone who thinks that being trans doesn’t cause problems with the police really should try it some day)
4) We can hardly defend our position on being against ID Cards if we give in to this. We’re basically admitting that the database state is required to ensure our security. I, and many others, do not believe it is necessary.

Dave Page has a post up on LibDemVoice that goes into more detail. There are also many other blog posts on the issue – here’s a random selection. (I apologise to anyone I haven’t included, there are so many – I’ll add a few more here shortly)

Caron’s Musings: My Federal Conference Dilemma – do I submit to illiberal police veto? and Episode 2: The Petition and The Letter
Spiderplant Land: Liberal Democrat Conference 2011 – The most ‘illiberal’ yet and Keep Liberal Democrat Conference Liberal
Liberal England: Do the police now decide who can attend the Liberal Democrat Conference?
Miss SB: So the problem is apparently not the poor HQ staff, but the police.
Stephen’s Liberal Journal: I may be approved, but I may not accredited #ldconf
Disgruntled Radical: Police can veto who goes to Lib Dem Conference ?!!?
Liberal Ramblings from Petersfield: Conference time and I’m not happy
Daniel Furr: The great liberal police state
Emma Brownbill: Wanted: A Fair, Free and Open Conference – for all of us.

And of course, the twitter hashtag, #ldconf.

What can be done?

Firstly, there’s a petition you can sign. More importantly, please pass this on to other members of your local party who might not otherwise see it! There’s a very active LibDem blogosphere and twitter community but it’s only a small fraction of the party as a whole.

Secondly, there are T-Shirts to wear at conference itself, featuring the design above designed by Sarah Brown.

And thirdly, there’s a letter a few of us put together that you can circulate and hopefully get your local party to pass on up the chain. The more grass roots pressure there is on this, the more chance there is of the FCC going back and looking at the security arrangements again:

Dear colleague,

We wish to make clear our disappointment at the way in which the registration process for the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham is being carried out as agreed by the Federal Conference Committee in conjunction with West Midlands Police.

The new registration process requires that those who wish to attend conference provide Greater Manchester Police (on behalf of West Midlands Police) with their personal information such as passport and NI numbers.

As a liberal party with a strong history and record of protecting civil liberties, we are gravely concerned that such an illiberal registration process has been allowed to take place by the party’s Federal Conference Committee without direct consultation with those directly affected, i.e. members.

We also wish to make clear our disappointment and disagreement with the declaration that “These details will be passed onto the police to carry out their own accreditation procedures.” For a party which has consistently fought to protect and re-instate civil liberties and freedoms, we cannot support a decision which removes our right to keep our private information private.

We strongly disagree with the decision that West Midlands Police have the power to disallow any member of the Liberal Democrats from attending conference should they wish to do so. It is every party member’s right to attend conference and only the federal party has the right to refuse access with justifiable reason. Furthermore the federal party’s constitution states that local parties shall elect local representatives for conference. We feel it is unacceptable to allow the Police to over-ride the wishes of local parties by having a power of veto over attendance. This new requirement may also restrict other members from attending due to their personal circumstances such as;

  • anyone under 16 will not have an NI number or Driving Licence
  • members whose membership is in a different name from their official ID. (Pseudonym, transgendered or just plain got married)

We ask that the registration process for conference be urgently re-evaluated by the Federal Conference Committee and that they consider with immediate effect the removal of such an illiberal requirement on its members.

by ·2 Comments

I’m finding some of the debate over the LibDem conference attendance disappointing and not what I expected of the party.

There’s a small but significant number of people who don’t see what the fuss is about. That’s fine, but how about letting those that do care campaign on it without labelling people as hysterical or overreacting? Some of us have good reasons to be wary of the police and when statements like “your passport details… will be retained and/or passed to other police forces in the future” appear in the terms and conditions, that’s bound to set alarm bells ringing.

And secondly, should we not lead from the front? It does not do much for our argument that ID Cards were unnecessary and draconian if we are unable to protect our own conference without resorting to similarly draconian measures, particularly given that bags are already searched and, in the case of Autumn conference, X-Rayed before admission to the venue.

What has not been made clear is what happens to those that are refused? Some have said that it’s unlikely anyone will be refused. If so, why bother?

But if someone is denied entry, do they have any right of appeal? Will they even get to know the evidence against them? Even US Senators had trouble appearing on their no-fly list.

“Sorry mate, you can’t come in. You’re on our no-politics list”.

(Edited to add: For those not familiar with the issue, West Midlands Police are insisting on some quite heavy-handed vetting of attendees for “security” reasons and it looks like the Federal Conference Committee have caved in.)

by ·1 Comment

If you want lots of hits on your blog, try a blog post with “Free Sex” in the title, such as Free sex change and relationship breakup, thanks to the census. It does rather well getting hits from search engines, although perhaps not the kind of audience I usually get…

by ·0 Comments

In our house, we’ve come up with a new drinking game when watching any of the myriad of emergency services documentaries on TV these days, particularly police ones.

It’s quite simple. Take a drink every time the police arrest someone for a “section 5” public order offence because they muttered something under their breath when walking away from the police.

(Bonus drink if they previously stated “You can’t arrest me!” or I start ranting about how the police are doing things we’re not allowed to do even to prisoners of war who have just been trying to kill us)

Do not expect to finish the evening sober.

by ·7 Comments

It appears that the Office for National Statistics, when reporting on census data, will simply get their computer try to guess at what people intended.

If you’re a gay man and ticked the married box then the Office for National Statistics will ensure the “mismatch is… resolved using a probabilistic statistical system [to] alter one or more variables to make the response consistent“. And yes, they specifically state this could result in the system “changing the sex of one individual“.

This completely ignores the fact that married – not just Civil Partnered – couples of the same sex are entirely valid. Perhaps it’s a foreign marriage, or you’re Trans and married but don’t have a GRC for any of a whole host of reasons?

Oh, and they might divorce you anyway: If you indicate multiple relationships (A Poly household for example) they’ll just pick one to ensure everyone is in nice neat couples for their system. I guess anything else would just be Too Complicated for the statisticians.

I’ve submitted a followup FoI request to find out how common this has been in previous years. (Although previous years will not have had Civil Partner as an option)

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

by ·2 Comments

I’m mildly amused by yesterdays revelations that Number 10 use false names on letters. It’s not unusual for this to happen for “security reasons” even outside of the civil service. I briefly worked for a car finance company and many of the collections/fraud staff used pseudonyms to avoid trouble.

(The kind of person who can obtain or fake the documents required to get a car loan fraudulently isn’t necessarily a Nice Person. Our staff telephone lists, with two names for some people, became quite sensitive documents!)

This seemed to work very well, even as far as using that name in court, as long as you are consistent so that letters and phone calls are attributed to an individual. Indeed, it’s rather more common than many people might initially think as many professional women will keep their maiden name at work while changing their name for other purposes. The trouble was that Number 10’s system is to use completely random names each time. Today’s Mr F Bloggs is tomorrow’s Mrs J Doe, so if you ring up and ask for Mr F Bloggs then they have no idea who you’re talking about!

Perhaps they just need more diversity at higher levels of their communications office. Many married professional women and most Trans folk will know that in this country at least, a name isn’t anything special.

by ·3 Comments

48 hours on from the news that the police will be getting increased powers of prosecution, we’ve learnt there are plans to also give them more power when it comes to dealing with traffic offences. Specifically, they will be able to hand out fixed penaty notices for driving like an inconsiderate dolt tailgating and similar offences, rather than having to take you to court.

It is unusual for me to approve of additional police power, but I like the sound of these ones. Tailgating is a serious problem and one that can’t be addressed by speed cameras and does contribute to accidents. I also believe it is more clear cut than some critics of the proposals seem to think as if you are consistently half a second behind the vehicle in front you are too close. There’s little room for argument there.

I am assuming that drivers given a fixed penalty will be able to opt to go to court as an alternative, however. The news seems to have been released without (And this is far too common with government departments) anything actually being posted on the web sites of any of the departments involved. So, as usual, we’re left to read between the lines from media reports that may or may not be accurate until the promised “written statement” is forthcoming later today.