SITE SEARCH

When the public ask for information at a Police and Crime Panel, we should be told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. By Claire Loneragan On 23 February 2025, Joy Davies submitted a Freedom of Information Request to Avon and Somerset police. You can find it here , along with the response from Avon & Somerset who were happy to provide the information requested. This is what Joy requested: Please provide a copy of the most recent of the following documents, please also indicate if there are any further iterations awaiting approval. 1. Most recent Transgender in the workplace policy. 2. Most recent EIA for the Transgender in the workplace policy, specifically any considerations regarding use of changing rooms and toilet facilities. 3. What groups, both internal and external, were consulted with in the preparation of the policy. 4. Most recent custody protocol incorporating strip searching process. 5. Most recent custody EIA for custody protocol.6. What groups, both internal and external, were consulted with in the preparation of the protocol. It’s hard to know where to start with the documents provided. They reveal one of the worst Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) I’ve seen – in what is a very crowded field – and that Clare Moody and Sarah Crew deliberately mislead the public when they answered questions at the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) in Taunton on 4 February 2025. Or if they did not, then activists have so thoroughly captured A&S Police that it is no longer possible for senior officers and the PCC to trust the information they are given by their staff. Avon and Somerset Police Transgender and Non-Binary inclusion in the workplace guidance Dated March 2025, this document is bang up to date and kicks off with some very positive updates. On 5 March the Stonewall review was removed (which hopefully means that Stonewall no longer has oversight of Avon & Somerset Police HR policy). Excellent news. That same update removed Mermaids and Stonewall as support groups. Also excellent news. And Appendix D was corrected to show “Warrant card” rather than “Warrant card(s)” which probably relates to withdrawal of the previous guidance allowing “genderfluid” officers to have more than one warrant card. This is where the good news ends. This document was obviously written by activists. Every tenet of genderism is accepted without caveat, from sex being “assigned at birth”, to non-binary people identifying as neither male nor female (or, confusingly, identifying as both). We learn that warrant cards will be issued to reflect an individual’s “ authentic gender identity ” and misgendering and deadnaming may be treated as harassment. Even the need for extreme secrecy about someone’s “gender identity” whilst at the same time treating a “transgender colleague” as the gender with which they identify – regardless of whether they have had any cosmetic surgery or hormone treatment – is earnestly demanded without any consideration as to how this could possibly be achieved. For those who transition whilst in service, fellow officers are somehow required to simultaneously know and not know their colleague’s sex. It will come as no surprise that, along with names, uniforms and pronouns, police officers who claim to be “transitioning” can choose the toilets and changing rooms they would like to use. Indeed, Clare Moody quoted from section 10 of this document at the PCP in Taunton on 4 February: “10.3 If a person is transitioning in a workplace, then they may wish to talk to their employer or manager about the facilities they wish to use at which point during their transition.” She also said: “in compliance with the law, single-sex facilities and shower areas are available for staff …. the design and provision of toilets, showers, and changing rooms are intended to prevent any situation where a woman would be forced to undress or shower with trans-identifying men.” But these things cannot both be true. Even if the design intends to prevent women being forced to undress or shower with a “trans-identifying man”, the policy permits – even requires – precisely that. It implements self-ID in the workplace and wraps it up in the approved language of activists. The glossary, which is littered with typos and grammatical errors, lists the terminology officers should use, whilst noting that not everyone uses the terms as defined. Unaccountably, “misogyny” and “autogynephilia” are omitted. Transition is to be supported by all, with time off for medical treatment and surgery (if requested) and all traces of a previous identity expunged on request. Nothing is too much trouble, and colleagues are instructed to “respect and support individual’s (sic) choices and wishes”. Avon & Somerset have implemented the Family Guy trans policy The Equality Impact Assessment When you’re in need of a good laugh, it’s hard to beat an Avon & Somerset Police Equality Impact Assessment. And the EIA that accompanies the Transgender and Non-Binary inclusion in the workplace guidance is a gem. The purpose of an EIA is to give the tyres a good kicking on any new policy and surface any consequences for people who are not the intended targets of the policy. But, as with all EIAs that relate to matters transgender, the author appears to believe that his or her task is to examine how the life of a transgender person will be affected by this policy. Who approves these things? This summary couldn’t miss the point more thoroughly. We are led to believe that the people who are permitted to choose which toilets and changing rooms they use are the only ones affected by this choice. No impact on women, then, of men identifying their way into women’s facilities? And what is meant by “intersectionality” here? Come to that, what is meant by “evidence”? If evidence gathered for criminal investigations looks anything like this, it’s a miracle anyone is ever convicted of any crimes at all. We shouldn’t be surprised that no impact was identified for any other group; only the LGBT+ Network and Outreach team were consulted. Of course they didn’t ask women. Or disabled people. Or consider the public impact of a male police officer wearing a female uniform and calling himself Gladys. Only a bigot would have a problem with that. And the impact identified on those claiming the protected characteristic of gender reassignment? Adverse impact identified- due to the withdrawal of national guidance- since our guidance was based on the NPCC guidance, we are urgently reviewing our position, including seeking legal advice. In the interim, all searches are being carried out in line with the officer or staff member’s training and legal authority, taking into account our responsibilities under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and, where a person has been detained, as authorised by the Custody Sergeant. This authorisation must take into consideration the response of the detainee and officers concerned to ensure any conflict is reduced or avoided, and searches are conducted safely and with dignity. Only a cynic would interpret this to mean “having been forced to withdraw our unlawful policy, we will revert to searching the public in line with the rules laid out by PACE”. But why would this be an “adverse” impact? Male officers who would like to search female suspects do not suffer a detriment from being told they cannot. On 4 February at the Taunton Police and Crime Panel I asked whether officers had been trained in the new policy following the withdrawal of the NPCC transgender search policy, and whether an EIA had been done. Clare Moody replied that there was no new policy, and “Therefore, there was no requirement to undertake an Equality Analysis or Data Protection Impact Assessment.” And yet, here is the Equality Impact Assessment which specifically acknowledges a change in policy. For what it’s worth.

Update 6 March 2025 On 4th March 2025 an independent review on the placement of girls in prison was published, acknowledging the input of expert stakeholders including the Women’s Rights Network. Read our representations to the review here . The author, Susannah Hancock, recommended that girls no longer be placed in ANY Young Offender Institutions or Secure Training Centres, let alone ones for boys. Fortunately ministers immediately accepted this recommendation, which is not being opposed by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, who are responsible for prison accommodation for children. This ends the scandal of placing vulnerable young girls in prisons for boys and young adult men. Whilst this is a major positive step, we are disappointed that the review did not go further and recommend single-sex prison provision at all ages. Girls will now be held in Secure Children’s Homes, where the majority of children are boys. WRN will continue to push for ALL secure establishments, for all ages, to be solely single-sex. Published 21 March 2024 On 5th March 2024, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons published a report on an unannounced inspection of HM Young Offender Institution Wetherby. Wetherby is a prison in West Yorkshire for boys aged 15 – 17. One of the most shocking elements highlighted by the report, widely publicised in the media, was the account of a girl who was self-harming by tying her clothes to form ligatures, being forcibly stripped by adult male staff, twice during the short period of the inspection alone. Wetherby has the highest self-harm rate of any prison in the country, the report noted. The THREE girls amongst the 165 children held in Wetherby accounted for more than half of the incidents of self-harm. On 23 occasions girls had been held down and had their clothes forcibly cut off by all male teams of staff. Male staff, because Wetherby is a boys’ prison. So why are there girls being held there? The answer lies in the appalling state of custodial services for children. Children in custody are held in one of three settings: ●       Secure Training Centres (STCs), run by the Youth Custody Service for girls and boys aged between 12 and 18 years old ●       Secure Children’s Homes (SCHs) run by local authorities or private agencies, for girls and boys between 10 and 18 years old (SCHs also accommodate children held securely for welfare reasons, who mix fully with children detained for committing serious crimes) ●       Young Offender Institutions (YOIs), run by the Youth Custody Service for boys aged 15 – 18 SCHs have a right of veto over any placement. If they turn down a child, there is currently no means to challenge that. This leaves the three STCs: Medway, Oakhill and Rainsbrook. Medway STC was closed in 2020 after repeated inspections found failings in safeguarding and care. It is currently being revamped as a ‘secure school’, due to open imminently. Rainsbrook STC was urgently closed in 2021 after an inspection found that children could not be kept safe. It was at this stage that, in what was billed as a temporary measure to ease immediate pressures, girls were first accommodated in Keppel. Later in 2021, Oakhill was given an Urgent Notification for severe failings in inspection; while it remains open, the numbers of children accommodated are being kept low to manage its shortcomings in safeguarding. This leaves nowhere for the tiny numbers of girls given a prison sentence. These numbers are indeed tiny – only six girls are in youth custody at the moment. For those turned down by Secure Children’s Homes, the choice of the Youth Custody Service has been to accommodate them in Wetherby. The justification for this choice appears to be that the girls are housed in a unit called Keppel, which has a higher ratio of staff to children than is usual at a Young Offenders Institution. However Keppel has this high ratio (of MALE staff) because it was set up to manage some of the most damaged boys in the system, including those who have committed sexual offences. This information casts an even more sinister light on those astronomic rates of self-harm by the girls shut into this unit. For the past year or so, YOIs have accommodated younger adults, in order to ease the pressures on adult prisons. Around a third of prisoners in YOIs are over 18 years old; the increase in incidents of violence and huge rise in the use of PAVA, an incapacitating spray causing burning sensations (its use against under 18s is highly controversial) during that time is surely no coincidence. So girls in Wetherby are also in spaces with violent adult male prisoners. Rather than taking steps to move the girls immediately, the Youth Custody Service stated in its action plan published in March 2024 in response to the inspection that it would create “gender-specific guidance for HMYOI Wetherby on the care of girls”. And who is holding the Youth Custody Service to account for this? The Youth Justice Board has a legal duty to monitor the performance of all elements of youth justice provision. Yet its newly published guidance on custody and resettlement says: “YOIs… except for the Keppel unit , only take boys”. This was supposed to be a temporary measure. Worryingly, it looks as though the Youth Justice Board, rather than upholding its responsibility to hold the Youth Custody Service to account, has accepted that its failure to meet the needs of girls will be permanent. An HMI Prisons thematic report in 2022 gives a grim picture of the needs of the girls who end up in prison. Shockingly, some are placed in prison on remand (before trial) solely because of a lack of housing. Girls who go to prison have experienced trauma, sexual and physical abuse and exploitation and have complex mental health issues. The report also found that self-harm and restraint was common for girls; girls were punished more and poor behaviour by boys tolerated far more. Girls had less time outside of cells than boys; and the rate of violence was highest in the unit where they lived. The report notes that when speaking to prison staff, “psychologists view mixed units unfavourably, and express concern about the potential for girls to be re-traumatised”. The key argument for mixed provision was that it ‘mirrored the outside community’ – that community which had so badly and serially abused and failed these girls. In 2024 the minister responsible for youth custody, Edward Argar, was asked in Parliament about the relative costs of the different types of youth institution. He revealed that the average cost per year of keeping one child in each type is: ●       Secure Training Centre £305,892 ●       Secure Children’s Home £299,459 ●       Young Offender Institution  £129,333 Leaving aside the usual tabloid comparisons with sending a child to Eton (£46,296 if you are interested), let alone the question of how STCs are failing so badly with this level of funding; this begs the question as to whether accommodating those three girls in Wetherby is influenced by the cost. There are only six girls in prison. Surely it is not beyond the Youth Custody Service to create specific provision for them, away from boys? It was 1813 when Elizabeth Fry first began her work to create sex specific prison facilities for women, with the primary aim to protect female prisoners from being raped. In 1823 she was successful in getting the Gaols Act, putting sex segregated prison accommodation into statute, agreed by Parliament. 200 years later, the Youth Custody Service is betraying her legacy. The Secretary of State and prisons minister must take action NOW.

Police and Crime Commissioner Clare Moody appears to be more interested in being on the same page as her Chief Constable than her constituents. By Claire Loneragan "Avon and Somerset Police has denied it is “sanctioning serious sexual offences within its own ranks” over its treatment of female officers. The police force has policies in place to protect both its female officers and female members of the public, such as ensuring strip searches of a suspect are carried out by an officer of the same sex." This is how Daniel Mumby opens his report of our attendance at the police and crime panel in Taunton at the beginning of February. Unfortunately, Daniel is mistaken. Three of us – Jodie, Charlotte and I – wanted to know what the current Avon and Somerset transgender policies are, and what our elected representative, Clare Moody the PCC, is doing to look after our interests. Moody and Crew explaining why men should be able to use women’s facilities It turns out that our PCC and Chief Constable Sarah Crew aren’t all that interested in what the public wants. I’ve looked carefully at their responses ( you can see the transcript here ), and they confirm that police policies do not ensure strip searches are carried out by an officer of the same sex. Instead, Clare Moody and Sarah Crew prefer to interpret the Equality Act 2010 so that those who claim an identity that differs from their sex get exactly what they want. I wrote about how captured A&S Police are a while back. Unbelievably, their policies stated that “gender fluid” officers can have more than one warrant card, so Charlotte asked whether this policy was still in place. Moody and Crew’s answer: "The guidance regarding ID/warrant cards was updated in January 2025 to state that officers may only carry one ID/warrant card at a time. The Facilities Policy remains unchanged, offering gender-neutral and single-sex options." And yet, the policy document previously found on the A&S Police website remains unchanged*. It clearly states that multiple warrant cards may be held. And that unchanged facilities policy says that “transitioning” officers (in other words, anyone) can “ change from using one set of toilets and other single-sex facilities to another ”. Labelling facilities “single-sex” does not provide safety or privacy to female police officers if men can choose to use them. Ironically, with gender-neutral facilities providing private cubicles, female police officers may prefer to use them to the single-mixed-sex variety. Despite the outcry following the publication of the WRN Police report in January 2024, an outcry which led to the NPCC transgender search policy being withdrawn because it is unlawful, no lessons have been learned. It isn’t just the search policy that is unlawful, it’s every policy that requires women to accommodate men who claim they are women. (The For Women Scotland case might yet require us to accommodate men who have a GRC, but current Avon and Somerset Police policies are clear that no GRC is required). In answer to Jodie’s questions, Moody and Crew assured us that Equality Impact Assessments are an important source of information (although what they learned from the EIA compiled for the transgender search policy is anyone’s guess), and that women’s groups are not routinely consulted during policy development. In news that will surprise nobody, it appears the police prefer to consult almost exclusively with themselves: "The consultation process for policies and procedures varies depending on the subject matter of the policy or procedure. For amendments to the searching in Custody procedure, representatives from the Diverse Outreach team, Human Resources department, Legal Services and the Stop and Search Lead. Consultation also took place with staff associations and diversity networks." And what of that withdrawn transgender search policy? Has it been amended so that members of the public will only be searched for more thorough searches, including strip searches, by an officer of the same sex as reported by Daniel Mumby? The answer I was given explained that the policy has been consulted on. That it is inclusive. That it is quality assured. That the process for delivering it was followed. And that: "No new policy has been developed in relation to more thorough searching. In January 2025, ASP reviewed and updated the Custody Standard Operating Procedure to increase clarity for those involved in searching" In other words, none of our objections to the previous unlawful policy have been addressed, and women cannot be assured that they will be searched only by a female officer. The problem isn’t that the search policy was unclear, it’s that it is unlawful. Police and Crime Commissioners are elected by us, the public, to represent our interests and hold the Chief Constable to account. To ensure that the electorate gets the police force we need. We do not have that in Avon and Somerset. And Moody and Crew look to be every bit as ominous a pairing as they sound. * One day this obscene policy will be removed but you can still find a copy of it here .

Guest post from Nordic Model Now If you listen to the mainstream media, it would be easy to think that prostitution, now rebranded as ‘sex work’, is a good career option for some women, with its flexible hours and ‘easy money’. And so, you might think, decriminalising it makes sense. But when you think about what prostitution really is, it quickly becomes clear that things aren’t that simple. Who better to remind us of the true nature of prostitution than Andrea Dworkin , who was herself involved in it as a young woman: “I want to bring us back to basics. Prostitution: what is it? It is the use of a woman’s body for sex by a man, he pays money, he does what he wants. The minute you move away from what it really is, you move away from prostitution into the world of ideas. You will feel better; you will have a better time; it is more fun; there is plenty to discuss, but you will be discussing ideas, not prostitution. Prostitution is not an idea. It is the mouth, the vagina, the rectum, penetrated usually by a penis, sometimes hands, sometimes objects, by one man and then another and then another and then another and then another. That’s what it is.” So not an ordinary job. There have been a lot of developments since Dworkin wrote this in 1993. Not only has the industry expanded, but we now have lap dancing clubs in almost every city, webcamming, Pornhub and a multitude of similar free porn sites, OnlyFans, and websites where men can browse catalogues of women and order one up  to their flat or hotel room as if she were a pizza. Prostitution is now a massive industry that has been growing year on year for decades. According to the ONS, it contributed £6.3 BILLION  to British GDP in 2023 – and that doesn’t include OnlyFans’s $1.31 billion net revenue  or the porn and lap dancing empires. Meanwhile in England and Wales the police have more or less given up on enforcing the law  against pimping, brothel keeping, kerb crawling, and paying for sex with a child or with an adult who has been coerced. All of these different forms of sexploitation present men with a picture of a multitude of interchangeable (mostly) young women who are sexually available and willing, desperate even, to flatter them and fulfil their every sexual whim, no matter how violent or perverse. As such, the sex industry in all its forms feeds men’s individual and collective sense of superiority and entitlement to sexual access to and control of women. These are known to be the very attitudes  that are associated with male violence against women and girls. In other words, men who use prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation are more likely  to be violent towards women and girls in the general community. In one study, they were found to be eight times  more likely to rape women than other men. Is it any wonder then that in the past decade we have witnessed a huge increase  in male violence against women and girls? When treating women as sexual commodities is so accepted and normalised, we should not be surprised that more than 50 men in a small French town thought nothing of accepting Dominique Pelicot’s invitation  to rape his unconscious wife. When the British police have almost totally given up on enforcing the law on pimping and child sexual exploitation, we should not be surprised that we have a “grooming gangs” scandal . The normalisation of prostitution, the pornification of the culture, and the new forms of sexploitation, including OnlyFans, have simultaneously groomed girls to accept a life of objectification and service to men’s needs rather than their own. Signing up for OnlyFans is now only a small step from running an Instagram account. So we should not be surprised that increasing numbers of young women, like Lily Phillips , are engaged in ever more desperate stunts to “sell their virginity” or have sex with large numbers of men. We must  join up the dots and see how all these things are related. If as a society we continue to give the sexploitation industry free rein, or we go even further and fully decriminalise it, where will we end up? How many more lives must be ruined before we take action? So what’s the solution? Many feminists support the Nordic Model  (also known as the Equality Model or Abolitionist Model), an approach to prostitution policy and legislation that has been adopted in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, and Israel. It is a human rights-based approach that recognises the prostitution system as part of the structural oppression of women and other marginalised groups, and as both a cause and a consequence of the persistent inequality between the sexes. It is the only approach that prioritises support, assistance to exit, and alternatives for those caught up in prostitution (almost all surveys show that the overwhelming majority are desperate to get out), while holding pimps and sex buyers to account. Specifically, the Nordic Model: Decriminalises the selling of sex, provides those selling sex with high-quality, non-judgemental support services, genuine routes out, and alternatives, and expunges criminal records and prostitute cautions for soliciting to sell sex. Strengthens laws against pimping, brothel keeping, prostitution advertising, and human trafficking. Makes buying sex a criminal offence, with the key aim of changing men’s attitudes and behaviour. Must be accompanied by a whole raft of holistic measures, including a public information campaign, education in schools and colleges, training for the police and other front-line officials, and tackling the inequality and poverty that drive people into prostitution. What about ‘decriminalisation’? The alternative that is heavily promoted by a vocal and well-financed lobby for the expansion of the industry is  full decriminalisation  (‘decrim’). This involves the decriminalisation of all aspects  of the prostitution industry, including pimping, brothel keeping, and advertising. Prostitution is treated like any other business and there is no public funding for services to help women exit the industry. This enshrines in law men’s right to buy women for sex and third parties’ right to profit from women’s prostitution. This inevitably leads to more men buying sex more frequently, and more pimps and brothel keepers wanting to cash in on all that extra money. It therefore always leads to a rapid expansion  in the size of the industry and an increase in human trafficking. Full decriminalisation has been in force in New Zealand since 2003. It has  not been the success  that is often claimed. Comparison of the two approaches.   Nordic Model Decriminalisation Selling sex is legal? Yes Yes Services for those selling sex, incl. routes out? Yes No Pimping is legal? No Yes Brothels are legal? No Yes Buying sex is legal? No Yes But isn’t ‘sex work’ just a normal job? When you scrape off the sugar-coating, many of the things we expect in the workplace, like career progression,  protection from sexual harassment , and  health and safety standards , simply do not exist in prostitution. If dentists have to wear masks, goggles and protective clothing just to look in your mouth, what kind of protection would you need to conform to health and safety standards when having full-on sexual intimacy with multiple strangers?   Employers are required by law to protect employees from harm.  Risks and harms  of prostitution include: Infections including gonorrhoea, chlamydia, herpes, syphilis, hepatitis, and HIV, some caused by microbes resistant to antibiotics. Unwanted pregnancy. Injuries to the vagina, anus and rectum, including tears, abrasions, fissures and fistulas. Damage to abdominal and pelvic areas caused by mechanical trauma, including prolapse, incontinence, pain, and infertility. Brain injury through strangulation and other acts of physical violence. Traumatic brain damage at levels comparable to boxers and victims of torture. Dissociation. PTSD incidence in the range 47-68%, higher than in combat veterans. High rates of mental disorders correlating with high levels of violence from pimps and buyers. Job specification Women who have survived prostitution  compiled the following job specification for prostitution . General tasks : Sexual activity with multiple male strangers, regardless of their age, appearance, attitude, health, or hygiene standards. Every orifice must be available. Act degrading scenes from porn. Responsibilities : Never complain. Simulate pleasure. Be convincing. Do whatever the buyer wants, even if it hurts or disgusts you. The buyer is always right. Conform to unrealistic standards, even when pregnant or distressed. Abandon personal and health and safety boundaries to remain competitive. Career development : Typically downwards as you get older, less desirable and less able to tolerate the abuse. Potential negative impact on future career and even the ability to work. Physical, emotional and spiritual damage. Social isolation. Substance abuse. Immediate boss : Brothel owner, human traffickers, escort ‘agencies’, pimps, and every buyer. Desirable qualifications : As young as possible. A fuckable body. Vulnerability. Ability to dissociate. Lack of social support. A history of prior abuse, exploitation, self-harm, homelessness or being in care. Poor. Remuneration : Fluctuates due to deliberate over-recruitment by brothel owners etc. leading to pressure to accept extreme porn-related demands from buyers. No pension, sick, or holiday pay. Deductions : Large deductions to pimps, brothel owners, drivers and others offering ‘protection’ whilst being the greatest source of danger, or facilitators of it. ‘High end’ only means higher overheads and outgoings to satisfy buyers’ expectations. Occupational hazards : Being urinated and defecated on, being strangled, raped, tortured. Long-term disability due to repeated internal and external injury. PTSD and other enduring mental health challenges. Definitely not an ordinary job. This is why we reject the ‘sex work’ and ‘sex worker’ terminology. They are euphemisms that obscure the brutal reality. Resources We recommend the NMN website  which has a wealth of information, including survivor testimony , myth busters , and blogs . It also has a website shop  that sells a variety of resources (all items are also available as free PDF downloads). NMN can offer bulk orders at reduced cost (email info@nordicmodelnow.org  for more information). We particularly recommend the following: What did you want to be when you were growing up? This four-sided A5 flyer briefly sets out the risks and harms of prostitution, introduces the Nordic Model, provides a comparison with full decriminalisation, along with some stats, quotes, and a job spec. Decriminalisation of the sex trade vs. the Nordic Model: What you need to know . This 32-page A5-sized booklet sets out the pros and cons of full decriminalisation vs. the Nordic Model. It explains in simple terms the key features of both approaches, along with information about the results of the Nordic Model in Sweden, of full decrim in New Zealand, and of legalisation in Germany, which is very similar to full decrim in practice. What are we talking about when we talk of the sex industry?  This 48-page A5-sized booklet aims to provide a realistic understanding of prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation. Power, Control and Coercion in Prostitution . This A4 flyer provides a version of the well-known Power and Control Wheel adapted for prostitution. The back of the flyer shows common reasons that make it hard to leave prostitution. What REALLY happened in New Zealand after prostitution was decriminalised?  This four-sided A5 flyer compares the claims of the lobbyists for full decriminalisation with recent research about what has really happened in New Zealand since it fully decriminalised prostitution in 2003. Find us on social media: We are @nordicmodelnow on X, FB, Instagram & YouTube - please follow, like and share. X: https://x.com/nordicmodelnow   FB: https://www.facebook.com/nordicmodelnow   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nordicmodelnow/   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/NordicModelNow   If you would like to embed a video in the page, we would suggest this one: https://www.youtube.com/live/Gy9iyoK6MWI?si=n9-iWYAoJBSIp8PH

This weekend I sat by the phone waiting for police and ambulance services to attend the address of my ex-husband, who had sent me a message saying he wanted to kill himself. My daughters were at the address; overnight contact mandated by the family court. A taxi was waiting to take me there, as I felt too shaky to drive. At 1.30am I was able to bring my girls home to safety. And to begin the process of starting to try to undo the damage caused by their enforced contact with a man whose heavy drinking leads to aggression, violence and an unpredictability that has left me, nearly ten years after leaving him, hypervigilant, anxious and prone to jumping wildly at the slightest shock. I do not want this to be the experience of my daughters. I want them to know and understand that they should never accept a man behaving this way in a relationship with them. Perhaps I can achieve this, now that I hope I will not be forced to take them for regular, unsupervised, unsafe contact. Nine and a half years ago I finally managed to get myself and my young children out of a situation where I was constantly on edge, waiting for the next explosion and the next physical violence towards me. Leaving him did not stop the abuse; whenever he felt aggrieved or self-pitying he would send me multiple messages with the vilest abuse – sometimes over 70 in the course of an evening. The things I had confided in him about my childhood, my elderly mother in nursing care, the heart-breaking late miscarriage I had – nothing was out of bounds for him to throw at me to hurt me. I contacted police and social care services asking for help. I paid for solicitors to write to him. Nothing made it stop. I supported my children maintaining a relationship with their father – ironically, as if I had been less accommodating, the courts might have taken a different approach. Whenever a flurry of messages made me concerned that his drinking and mental health had taken a downturn, I would stop overnight contact – I knew all too well how heavy drinking led to violence for my ex. For many years, I took no action on the abuse of me, figuring that if I was receiving his messages, at least I knew the signs of a deterioration so I could take action to protect my children. Then on the third occasion I stopped overnight stays (following my daughters reporting a Christmas stay they had found distressing and scary, and my younger daughter sobbing and begging not to stay with him) he took me to court. I can honestly say that nothing I experienced in my relationship with my ex traumatised and damaged me as much as my experience of the family court. After all this is a process which is designed to safeguard the vulnerable and provide justice – how much worse when it serially and utterly fails you. It took finding out that the stress of the abuse was having a serious impact on my physical as well as mental health to decide that I also needed to protect myself. It then took several attempts, failed undertakings, multiple reports of years and years of abuse to get the court to grant a non-molestation order. It finally took four breaches of that order for the criminal court to get involved. I find out in a couple of weeks whether the outcome will be real and effective steps to protect me and my daughters. After I travelled in a taxi to remove them in the middle of the night, my older daughter hiding in her bedroom listening to her father swear and shout then seeing him taken away by police – surely now, the requirement for me to enforce overnight stays will be removed. I am no longer a victim of violence. I am a survivor. And as a survivor, I choose NOT to forgive and forget. I do not forgive the Met police inspector who authorised a caution for my ex-husband for punching me in the face and breaking my nose – and gave him a lift home to the woman who had finally got the courage to report what was happening. I do not forgive the sergeant at Thames Valley who agreed No Further Action for my ex for coming to my house, shouting threats and terrifying my daughter – who said that this is what I should expect if I don’t allow contact with the children, and let slip that I was “just like his ex”. I do not forgive the Cafcass officer who did not read the lengthy reports from social workers, her colleagues or the statements of my children; and who told the court this was “one of those” and made statements about me based on prejudice and stereotype which had no truth to them. I do not forgive the magistrates who ignored Practice Direction 12 J, which says that domestic violence should always be considered, and arrangements should not place children at risk; who also ignored the principle of no order and who enforced my children’s overnight contact with their father. I do not forgive the lead magistrate who tried to bully me into conducting the hearing without the screens which I had requested. I do not forgive the Judicial Conduct Office, who dismissed my complaint about the bullying without looking at the detail. However, I also do not forget. I do not forget the wonderful women, my friends from the Women’s Rights Network, who drove me to court hearings, sat with me in waiting rooms, kept me from panic attacks in court corridors. I do not forget the women on Mumsnet who encouraged me to call the police. I do not forget the friends who helped me end the marriage and move out, often receiving abuse themselves from my ex for doing so. I don’t forget my lovely (and incredibly expensive) barrister, who did her best to get a positive outcome for me from the court process. I don’t forget the kindness of the Met police officer who went out to buy my children milk for breakfast when I had a smashed face, the many Thames Valley officers who have made a case against my ex, the ones who stayed with my children while I got there to take them home. It's time to mend myself and my children, as long as the process of damage is finally over. But it’s also time for me to get furiously angry about the implication of various agencies in my abuse. It is intolerable for the police and courts to continue to treat women in this way. Women are consistently dismissed as ‘bitter’ or engaging in ‘alienating behaviours’ when they try to protect their children from violent men. When children show an understandable reluctance to spend time with a volatile man who abuses their primary care-giver, this is cited as evidence of the ‘alienation’. Women and children are being damaged and failed. I am a senior social work professional, now married to a judge in the family court. It has taken me nearly ten years to have my abuse taken seriously. How much harder is it for other women? How many women and children have to die at the hands of violent men for there to be fundamental changes made to policing and family court processes? This is now my fight. I will not stop pressing for change, I will not forgive or forget, and I will not be silenced. I am no longer a victim, I am a survivor. And I will not stop.

By Faye McGinty It’s a no brainer; common sense; obvious. Give women what they want and they will come flocking to your door. In our report, Leisure Centres – Putting women and girls at risk , we provide evidence that most leisure centres are badly failing half the population.  WRN members spend hours of their spare time talking to the public in their local towns and cities. Among the women they speak to, a hot topic is the appearance of ‘gender neutral’ (i.e. mixed sex) changing rooms in general, and specifically the recent drive for new and refurbished leisure centres to have village changing areas where everyone wanders about together, moving between universal changing cubicles and lockers and with shared open plan showers. This sex de-segregation is deeply unpopular and women have stopped swimming as a result. What a terrible shame. It was these heart-breaking conversations with women who used to love swimming, but now feel too vulnerable in new village-style open changing rooms, that led to the question – how many of the UK’s leisure centres still provide single-sex changing facilities? To find the answer, WRN members used a tried-and-trusted method of extracting information from public bodies - Freedom of Information requests. The result: In all areas of the UK, around 30% of local authorities provide no  single sex changing or showering facilities for pool users. Why are mixed sex changing areas so unpopular? It isn’t acceptable to brush aside women’s instinctive  concerns about a lack of privacy and dignity with the snide condescension that they are being prudish, and “why not be more like continental Europe?”. There have been far too many cases of women and children being targeted by voyeurs and sex predators to ignore the fact that open, mixed sex changing rooms are a bad idea. These dangers must be taken more seriously by Sport England who are the main source of planning and design advice for pools and changing rooms in leisure centres.    If the Government wants to encourage women and girls into sustainable, healthy habits and increased exercise, there must be suitable facilities and opportunities. Removing sex-segregated facilities will only undermine this laudable objective. Swimming is a low impact form of aerobic exercise that is good for everyone. And it is particularly beneficial for people who struggle with joint and mobility problems or health issues that make higher impact activities impossible. Shouldn’t Councils and Leisure Centre operators be doing their best to provide this opportunity for women and girls? Of course they should! But clearly leisure centres are not doing their best for women and girls who want to go swimming. Women-only swimming sessions Another significant barrier is sharing the pool with men. For some women, it feels uncomfortable when only partially dressed in a thin, skimpy, unnecessarily clingy layer of polyester. Others are dealing with previous trauma, or have religious or cultural reasons for wanting a female-only space. It may just be that women want to enjoy their freedom away from the male gaze, and why not? The WRN Leisure Centre report also reveals that the majority of women in England, Wales and Scotland have no access to women-only swimming sessions. In Northern Ireland there are none at all. During the FOI process, it became clear that some leisure centres have trialled a women-only session but they were not successful and abandoned. While leisure centres should not be profit-driven, they do understandably have to cover costs. But how much of the lack of success is down to mixed sex changing areas or poor marketing? When Women-only means Mixed Sex A shocking aspect of this investigation was the discovery that the majority of leisure centres offering women-only swimming sessions are doing so under false pretences. In England, Wales and Scotland, only 28 of the 139 women-only swimming sessions exclude males who identify as women. Some of us will not be entirely surprised by these statistics, and while many people are starting to appreciate the consequences of self-identification of males into female-only spaces, others are still to find out that their lives are directly impacted by guidance that no longer recognises the definition of ‘women’ as one that relates to biological reality. Relatively few leisure centres provided a specific policy on the admission of men who identify as women into their women-only swim sessions. Not only are women being denied opportunities to go swimming free from the male gaze and get changed in safety with privacy and dignity, they are being deceived when the opportunity arises. WRN demands change Local Authorities plans and guidance provided by the Sports Councils of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales must prioritise  safeguarding and provide adequate risk assessments  and public consultation  for any village-style changing rooms. All service policies must protect  the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls. Local Authority and leisure centre staff should receive training in the Equality Act 2010 so they understand that women and girls have a legal right to single-sex facilities.  Sessions that are advertised as women only or girls only  must be clear that they only accept females using a definition based on sex. One outcome of this investigation is the lack of a specific policy for single-sex leisure centre services, or the quality of the policy. The operators Everyone Active appeared to develop their ‘inclusive’ policy as the FOI campaign progressed, and the UKActive policy, which relies on consistency ‘with the gender in which they present’, was quoted on a number of occasions. The major operators have policies that are vague at best The only policy that was clear and referred to legal sources was a statement on Single Sex Provision from Chelmsford City Council  (CC) which included guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Equality Act 2010 that allows the provision of separate or single-sex services in certain circumstances, including the possibility to exclude, modify or limit access to those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The statement from Chelmsford CC points out that facilities are permitted to discriminate on the grounds of low participation, citing the various schemes aimed at increasing participation of women and girls in sport and physical activity, tackling barriers due to religious and cultural beliefs, lack of confidence, body image issues and fear of judgement (particularly relevant in gym and pool environments), privacy and decency concerns, as well as sexual harassment and intimidation when dressed in clothes suitable for that activity, such as swimwear. This is a workable blueprint for all leisure centre operators and we will be sharing recommendations for lawful policies in a campaign to improve this environment for women and girls. Emma Hardy  has started legal proceedings  against David Lloyd clubs based on their service provisions under the Equality Act 2010. Following protracted communications with David Lloyd management, they failed to satisfactorily answer Emma’s simple question " Does our family membership include the prospect of our 11 and 13 year old daughters being naked in front of and alongside, naked men whilst in the female changing room? " The claim is of indirect discrimination against women who believe that sex is binary and immutable, and breach of contract; they are misleading their customers by allowing members to access changing rooms according to their “gendered appearance”, rendering the meaning of signage stating ‘Female’ changing rooms as, in fact, ‘Mixed sex’ changing rooms.  David Lloyd follow UKActive guidance on Transgender Access which relies on frontline staff making a subjective assessment on whether the appearance of a male is “consistent with the gender in which they present” and therefore sufficiently acceptable to be allowed entry into single-sex space when they arrive at a leisure facility, or as a result of “issues or concerns”.  The outcome of this case, which looks likely to go to court in the summer of 2025, will be interesting and is likely to set much needed legal precedence on the provision of female-only changing areas. Finally, a request Get in touch with us with your stories about swimming pools, changing rooms and leisure centre services so that we can show councils what women and girls have to deal with when using their facilities. We will of course protect your anonymity. Contact us at sports@womensrights.network . Thank You. #SaveWomensSport

Almost one-third of UK leisure centres have no single-sex changing areas for swimming pool users putting women and girls at increased risk of voyeurism and sexual assault, an investigation by Women’s Rights Network (WRN) has revealed. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to local councils and leisure providers found a growing trend towards open-plan, mixed-sex ‘changing villages’ in new and refurbished leisure centre swimming pool complexes. Mixed-sex facilities are unpopular with women, who tell WRN that they don’t want to use village-style changing areas and have stopped swimming as a result.  Several high-profile incidents of voyeurism or sexual assault in swimming pool mixed-sex changing areas have been reported in the last decade. Despite the known safety risks and the loss of privacy and dignity for women and girls, the accepted standard when designing new swimming pools is an open plan, universal changing village. The report also found that the majority of women in the UK have no access to single-sex swimming sessions. Only 10% of local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland offer female-only swimming sessions, and there are none at all in Northern Ireland. In many cases, advertised women-only sessions are open to anyone who ‘identifies as a woman’, i.e. males. The report concludes that UK Leisure Centres are badly failing women and girls by denying them access to single-sex fitness activities and sex-segregated changing areas. Report author, Faye McGinty, from the WRN Sport Group, says: “The Government is pumping millions of pounds into encouraging women and girls into sports and activity, and yet limited access to single sex swimming results in fewer women swimming. We know that, when asked, women want female-only changing areas.” WRN is calling for an immediate review of the planning guidance for village style swimming pool changing areas, and will campaign for all UK Leisure Centres to provide at least one subsidised, single-sex swimming session a week dedicated to women and girls.

Women of WRN Manchester have been involved in a courageous push-back against their City Council in defence of single sex spaces, by harnessing and deploying the legal prowess of Akua Reindorf, KC. The story begins in February 2022, on a dark day for women’s sex-based rights when Manchester City Council (MCC) passed a motion/resolution  with the title, ‘Trans Rights Are Human Rights’, declaring that ‘trans men are men, trans women are women, non-binary people are non-binary and trans rights are human rights’. Once passed, this motion gave unwelcome credibility to a nonsensical mantra in relation to the provision of Council services.  The motion was passed apparently unanimously at a full Council meeting without any questions on the implications for female-only services and no Equality Impact Assessment.  Members of WRN Manchester took immediate action, and working together with Labour Women’s Declaration (LWD), they have spent more than two years holding the Council to account and highlighting the implications of the motion on single sex services.  Cath Dyson of WRN Greater Manchester explains further: “ All Executive Members of the Council, the Director of Equality and Engagement and the City Solicitor have been contacted about our concerns. Do they fully understand the implications of the ‘Trans Rights are Human Rights’ motion on the delivery of council services including: leisure services such as women-only swimming sessions and toilets; personal social care from a carer; residential accommodation such as a nursing or care home; schools; funding of community groups for example decisions to fund single sex services such as domestic abuse services; homeless hostels; youth and children’s services; and data collection?  We have submitted FOIs, visited Leisure Centres and emailed Centre Managers. We also attended a Communities and Equalities Scrutiny Committee  where a resident explained that women attending women only swimming sessions, some who may have experienced sexual violence, would rightly expect it to be women only. The Committee Chair responded ‘... I’m going to stop you … this is about equality and inclusion … I’m not going to allow that point’. It was also made clear by the Director of Equality and Engagement that they were implementing a policy of ‘Transwomen are women’, when we asked for clarification about what was meant by ‘fully inclusive of all women’ and we received the following reply, ‘Fully inclusive to all women means just that, all women (including trans women)’. MCC and GLL (who provide the leisure services for MCC) defend the indefensible, telling us that inclusion of men in women’s services (and not telling those female service users) is about inclusion and equality. This is in spite of an up to date Equality Impact Assessment stating ‘There may be barriers to participation for women which may include less disposable time, an intimidating environment, or they may not feel as comfortable accessing all sessions available at the centre due to cultural or religious beliefs . This shows a surprising level of cognitive dissonance that recognises the specific needs of women, including those of faith, e.g. Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women, while simultaneously allowing males into these services. It's also worth noting that during the consultation on this Equality Impact Assessment they never once mentioned the 2022 motion to leisure service users. In effect MCC are implementing gender self ID  as a service provider and as an employer, with its ‘Commitment to being a trans and non-binary inclusive workplace’ ”  Knowing that there have been a series of successful outcomes in employment tribunal cases that involved the misinterpretation of Equality law, WRN Manchester and LWD put together a request, with pro bono support from a solicitor within the networks, for Legal Advice from the brilliant Akua Reindorf KC, of Cloister Chambers.  Akua Reindorf KC concludes that MCC did not comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in applying this motion to Council policies and services and is therefore at risk of acting unlawfully .  The Legal Advice is detailed and measured, but clear in its conclusions that,  It is unlikely a court would find that MCC complied with the PSED in passing the Resolution. If MCC operationalises the Resolution in areas of separate or single-sex services (which it currently is) it is acting unlawfully. MCC is likely to be placing itself in legal jeopardy if it insists on adopting a case-by-case approach to its separate or single-sex services. It is not lawful for MCC to operate separate or single sex services on a self-ID basis. It is possible that providing unisex services or self-ID services contravenes laws other than the Equality Act including, Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Children Act 1989 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and the Human Rights Act 1998.  Problems in data collection are capable of causing MCC legal difficulties in its compliance with the PSED. WRN Manchester women are determined to continue using all available mechanisms to challenge MCC - this is unfinished business and remains an ongoing campaign.  WRN Manchester have produced an Executive Summary with advice for WRN Members. Links to both the summary and the full Legal Advice are shared below, along with the MCC response which was commissioned from Dan Squires KC. Notes for members wanting to use the advice:   This Legal Advice draws on evidence gathered by Manchester residents who are members of Women’s Rights Network (WRN) and Labour Women’s Declaration (LWD). It was commissioned jointly by WRN and LWD and sent to MCC in July 2024. We waited to make the Advice document publicly available until we had received a response from MCC. They responded on 25 October with what we consider to be inadequate legal advice from Dan Squires KC.  MCC’s barrister would have known that there is no evidence that MCC have “ conscientiously considered ” the impact on women of allowing a male who identifies as a woman into single sex spaces, when advising that (in his view) there is a need for this to be done to be acting lawfully. Therefore, MCC have been and continue to be acting unlawfully and demonstrate a careless disregard for women and their need for single sex services, for their safety, dignity and privacy.  All these documents, including a summary of the key points made by Akua Reindorf KC, are available to download here.   Legal advice: Akua Reindorf KC Summary of legal advice: Akua Reindorf KC Response: Dan Squires KC Reply to the MCC response: From WRN & LWD   We hope that Akua Reindor KC’s Legal Advice will be of value to those fighting to protect women’s single sex spaces in other local authorities and organisations who provide services for the public. Please make use of it. Read the full document to check what is relevant for your situation. Use exact quotes from the Legal Advice, referencing the section and page number, and including the URL to the full document.

By Claire Loneragan It's incredibly naive to assume that no book targeting children could make them believe nonsense that is not true or could encourage them into risky behaviours. On the one hand, the powers-that-be seem keener than ever to keep us all safe. From banning cigarettes in communal outdoor spaces, to 20mph zones in towns and cities, to the Online Harms Bill conceived by the last Conservative government and about to be implemented by Labour. We are all required to constantly moderate our behaviour to keep ourselves and others safe. It’s the law. The one thing that does not require moderation, it seems, is literature. I have some sympathy with that. I’m all for book reviews and recommendations but I don’t want some busybody telling me what I can and cannot read. Book banning is in nobody’s best interests. But I’m an adult, capable of making my own decisions and living with the consequences of bad literary choices which generally amount to little more than wasting my time. Because, as an adult, I’ve learned not to believe everything I read even if it is in the local library and catalogued as non-fiction. It's different for children, though, because they’re, well, children . They do believe what they read in books, especially if they find them in the local library and they’re marked non-fiction. Children are entitled to expect that books which have been provided for them at public expense, and which they’re encouraged to read, have been vetted for accuracy and suitability and carefully selected by adults who have their best interests at heart. Unfortunately, that’s a mistake. You might be surprised to learn that unlike films, social media platforms, and online or video gaming, there is no legal requirement to age-assess books. I know that all children’s books are age-rated, but that rating is given by the publisher and is based on how difficult the book is to read and the publisher’s target customers. In other words, it’s there to help with sales and marketing. There’s no panel equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification ( BBFC ) that independently assesses the suitability of books, nor is there any legal requirement to ensure that literature is appropriate for the age group it is aimed at. This is at best a gap and at worst negligent. Haven’t we all read disturbing books that we couldn’t shake off? As a teenager I read a horror story about a malevolent doll – I forget who wrote it now – that gave me nightmares for weeks. There’s no doubt in my mind that book should have had an 18 rating. And there are plenty of “adult” magazines (or at least, there used to be) that were placed on the top shelf in the newsagent with good reason. So it seems an incredible omission that, despite decades spent promoting the consumption of literature by children because it is transformational and inspirational, nobody has considered the possibility that there might be books that could inspire children to engage in behaviours or take on beliefs that are not in their best interests. Or that the transformational impact of those books could be potentially devastating. Curiously, there seems to be a general belief that although great books can take children on a life changing journey to fantastic places, there aren’t any books that could damage a child. Perhaps there’s a naïve confidence that no author would write a book that aimed to disturb, mislead or corrupt a child. Or that, if such a book was written, it wouldn’t be published. Or if it did get published, teachers and librarians would weed it out and make sure it didn’t find its way into school bags or onto library shelves. And if all that happened, then surely parents would notice and stop their children from reading it. And yet it happens ALL THE TIME with films and digital games, websites and internet forums. There’s a tendency to think, too, that reading is inherently worthy. Aren’t we told that it doesn’t matter what children read as long as they are reading? But it does matter. And plenty of people have taken steps to ensure that children don’t read material that they consider unsuitable. It’s why publishers took it on themselves to edit Roald Dahl’s classics , or recommend that they are not reprinted. It’s why Enid Blyton’s Noddy was deemed offensive and why sensitivity readers are A Thing even for adults. There are people who want to subvert our children’s understanding of the world, and it looks very much as though they are leveraging the trusted status of libraries and school books to sell children a set of very bad ideas and promote some extremely risky behaviours. Books that tell children that it is possible to change sex, that everyone has a gender identity, that anal sex is normal for heterosexual couples, and instruct girls in how to make their own breast binders. And because those books are in schools and libraries, and some are even recommended as part of national reading programs, everyone assumes that their content must be fine. But nobody is checking, nobody is accountable and there is apparently no penalty at all for promoting damaging material to children as long as it is in print. Added to which, it’s seemingly impossible for parents to convince teachers, librarians and local councillors that any of this stuff is damaging anyway. The authors and publishers probably didn’t write the books knowing that there would be no legal challenge, after all, children are having these message pushed at them via every medium. But I imagine they’re delighted by how easy it has been, and how little pushback they’re getting. Compare the lack of safeguarding in libraries with the Online Safety Bill which requires those hosting content to be responsible for the safety of children with draconian penalties for those who do not comply.   The bill takes a zero-tolerance approach to protecting children and makes sure social media platforms are held responsible for the content they host. If they do not act rapidly to prevent and remove illegal content and stop children seeing material that is harmful to them, such as bullying, they will face significant fines that could reach billions of pounds. In some cases, their bosses may even face prison.     The only protection for children in respect of printed media is the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955: This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work which is of a kind likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons and consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or without the addition of written matter), being stories portraying—(a) the commission of crimes; or(b) acts of violence or cruelty; or(c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall. It’s something of a blunt instrument; it treats children as one homogenous group and was explicitly aimed at comics. But at least it recognises that printed literature can be harmful, something we appear to have forgotten. It’s time for us to look again at protecting children from terrible ideas and dangerous practices. We need robust age rating on children’s literature.

By Cathy Larkman and Claire Loneragan Police forces in the UK will tell you that they are very  committed to advancing women’s rights. That they are listening to women. They’ll all quote their commitment to the international #HeForShe campaign as the main way they demonstrate this. It’s a huge part of how they evidence claims that they are improving things for women.  Should they be so confident? Should we? And what exactly is HeForShe ? Male officers fall over themselves to be a HeForShe ‘champion’ in the workplace. Some, no doubt, for their forthcoming promotion board and some (let’s be optimistic) for more genuine and aspirational reasons. Every single force is signed up to this initiative.  This is from the HeForShe website . Every police force in the UK has signed up to the initiative, with a pledge to improve gender imbalances that exist at middle management levels within policing and to address and remove the sexism and misogyny, where it exists, in police culture.   Yes, that word ‘gender’ again. Somehow it manages to move focus away from supporting and helping women to, well, anyone at all.  At first glance, it’s an admirable campaign that puts the emphasis on men worldwide to take responsibility to recognise and address inequalities between the sexes. All well and good, although we’ve had a fair few examples of male police officers who are ‘HeForShe champions’ loftily lecturing women they work with on how to do feminism properly. They're nothing if not predictable, are they? Here’s what a serving female officer told us about HeForShe: “It’s the same old, same old. Men speaking for women and telling us what we need, when what we actually need is for them to shut up and listen to us. I spoke to a so-called ‘champion’ about this and he told me I was wrong and didn’t understand the project. Says it all!” There’s a list of leading figures on the HeForShe website, including the national policing lead for the UK (pictured below). The observant among you will already have noted the organisation at the top right of the picture ……. Here’s the HeForShe UK policing lead, Chief Constable Jeremy Vaughan of South Wales Police talking about the initiative. Nice commitment, but your internal warning klaxons will rightly be sounding when he references ‘all genders’. What are these mysterious ‘all genders’? Men, women and what else exactly? And why is a senior police leader talking such gibberish? Despite the frankly mad talk of ‘all genders’, the fifth annual report on how the policing service promotes HeForShe provides very helpful graphs on how internal work has improved the representation of women, compared to men, at various levels of the service. Each force has provided their own data and details of the specific work that they are undertaking. Here’s a graphic from Derbyshire. Unfortunately, Derbyshire doesn’t appear to be improving female representation, but is this at least a clear understanding of the fact that there are two sexes and that sex matters? None of the mysterious ‘all genders’ make an appearance in the various graphics, only the two sexes; men and women. It’s almost disappointing really. We could surely have benefited from having a name put to all these genders that they think exist. Seriously, if you are trying to engage and support women to ensure both that you improve the representation of women and their progression throughout the police force, then you need accurate data based on reality. If you don’t recognise the sex of those you are seeking to advance, then who exactly are you advancing ?  Each force providing evidence to this report cites ‘good practice examples’. These examples include laudable initiatives on menopause, endometriosis, support groups, encouragement for promotion and retention. Things that actually help women. Great news. Let’s hope none of these mysterious ‘all genders’ are self-identifying into these worthwhile initiatives. Spoiler – they can. What on earth were West Midlands police thinking here, though? Take a look at their ‘best practice example’ of how to remove issues faced by women in the force, including sexism and harassment. Recording your ‘gender identity’ will help, apparently. How can anyone take this stuff seriously? That ‘all genders’ thing has gone right to their heads. We already knew of course that most (if not all) forces are recording notional ideas of ‘gender’ rather than actual sex now, and that it hurts women. What is less obvious is that recording ‘gender’ or ‘gender identity’ instead of sex might be unlawful – imagine that! Employers can defend recording sex because they are legally required to avoid discrimination on the basis of any of the nine protected characteristics cited by the Equality Act 2010. Knowing the sex of its employees is key to knowing whether an organisation is guilty of sex discrimination. The same is NOT true of ‘gender’ or ‘gender identity’. There is no requirement to record or manage employee career progression on this basis, so employers have no right to record or even know this information. Anything that looks like compulsion to provide it would likely be a GDPR breach. They must have a valid reason for gathering this data, but if they can’t even name the gender identities, and if employees don’t have a consistent definition for them, it won’t be possible to report anything meaningful. Worse still, if the police are recording ‘gender’ and/or ‘gender identity’ instead of sex, the door to sex discrimination is left wide open. And what is the purpose of recording ANYTHING around improvements for women, if you don’t even know which of your employees ARE women? The graphs provided are meaningless and all the triumphant improvements and progress for ‘women’ are null and void. Because they may not actually BE women.  This madness came to a head in a survey sent around all UK police forces last year. The purpose of the survey was to ask staff and officers about their experience of sexual harassment in the workplace. Of course, the sex of the protagonists and the victims is certainly very important here and would surely be captured. Ermm, no. The survey asked those completing it for their ‘gender identity’. This is a feature, not a bug, in policing now. The survey was designed by an academic and was the initiative of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). 🤦‍♀️ If you’d like to look at your own force’s contribution to HeForShe, the document is here . But what is influencing this gender madness in HeForShe? Of course, it is a UNWomen initiative. Groan. Yes, the same organisation that rolled out Munroe Bergdorf as their first ‘UK Champion’, perhaps taking ‘un-woman’ quite literally. Here’s the magnificent Julie Burchill holding forth on his qualifications : “Bergdorf gives the phrase ‘failing up’ a whole new dimension, also having been stripped of their role as ambassador for Childline after Janice Turner of the Times questioned the advisability of putting ‘a porn model’ in such a role. They are the Eddie the Eagle of cross-dressing. So why on earth did the UN think this appointment was a good idea? So far as I know, Bergdorf has no record in campaigning against forced marriage, underage marriage, maternal morbidity and all those boring, uncool things which affect the lives of actual underprivileged people of the female persuasion. It’s because the point is to mock women by giving Bergdorf a job most women – having grown up as girls rather than boys, as Bergdorf did – could do much better. Bergdorf’s UN appointment aims to diss the girls and make them cry, or at least howl with indignation, as a whopping 17 women’s rights organisations have”.  The very same UNWomen who recently proclaimed that “Trans women have the same right to protection from violence and discrimination as everyone else, both as women  and based on their gender identity, as emphasised by numerous UN agencies and human rights experts”.  We do however, learn where the ludicrous ‘all genders’ posturing of UK police leaders comes from; They were also responsible for this offensive poster, making its own particular contribution to rape culture; Of course, UNWomen don’t particularly like women who don’t accept the erasure of their sex  or want to ensure that they still have access to single sex spaces and services; “State and non-state actors in many countries are attempting to roll back hard-won progress and further entrench stigma, endangering the rights and lives of LGBTIQ+ people. These movements use hateful propaganda and disinformation to target and attempt to delegitimize people with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions, and sex characteristics”.  The UN is still a highly respected organisation by most governments throughout the western world, though. And as a result, this entirely unevidenced hostile attitude towards sex realism and characterisation of gender critical women as being somehow ‘anti rights’ encourages the UK police service to gleefully and uncritically align itself with gender identity ideology as a ‘pro rights’ position. Far from defending them, it seems intent on destroying the rights of women. And the baleful influence of Stonewall and others on police leaders hasn’t helped either! Following its recent capitulation to the Taliban’s demands  to not allow Afghan women to be present or even have a voice at an event on Afghanistan, you might be forgiven for wondering if the UN cares at all about women’s rights. Perhaps those horrendously oppressed Afghan women and girls should take a leaf from UNWomen and the HeForShe initiative and just ‘identify’ as men instead.  We have a serious message for UK policing: HeForShe is not the great win you think it is.  If you really want to support ‘she’ then you really need to recognise that only adult human females are women and get the nonsense that is gender identity ideology out of your organisation and policies. Until then, you have about as much feminist credibility as UNWomen and Munroe Bergdorf.  Believe us, that is not a compliment.

By Helen Gibson, Surrogacy Concern Last week, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) raised the cap on payments that could be made by fertility clinics to young women for their eggs, to the dismay  of women’s rights campaigners. On 1 October the change was made , with payments to women for their eggs rising from £750 to £985 per cycle, while payments to men for their sperm have risen from £35 to £45 per donation. We are extremely concerned that such payments may incentivise vulnerable young women on low incomes, or those who are students, to sell their eggs for money. Once harvested and frozen, packages of six or ten eggs can be bought from fertility clinics, with prices starting from as little as £5750; raising huge concerns that private clinics are making money off the back of women’s body parts. The HFEA says payments to women are “compensation”; to reimburse women for their time, and expenses, and that donations remain “altruistic”; but the view of many women’s rights campaigners is that payments should be banned completely, to remove the risk that eggs are being sold from a point of financial need. In 2002 the HFEA recorded just 10 new egg donors, in 2022 there were 1650 in the UK. Adverts targeting women for their eggs are everywhere. Women as young as 18 have become egg donors, and other donors report being contacted on Instagram by couples who want their eggs. Because of the age group targeted for egg donation, many older people simply have no idea this is happening; but it is they who are benefitting. Because egg “donation” reveals a huge power imbalance: younger, poorer women, having their bodies mined for the benefit of older, wealthier couples. The language of the public debate is skewed towards those who want eggs: little focus is made towards the young female “donors”, or the donor conceived child. Egg harvesting is not simple, painless, uncomplicated or in any way equivalent to sperm donation. It involves huge health risks and dangers; I have been inundated in recent months with testimonies from women who nearly died after egg retrieval. Egg harvesting attempts to yield a high number of eggs at once, as more eggs mean a higher choice of ‘quality’ embryos (and onwards sales for the clinic). A woman in the UK may undertake ten cycles of donation; a dangerous ask bordering on medical malpractice. The process sees a young woman put through the early stages of IVF; she must inject hormones to stop her ovaries working temporarily, before taking follicle stimulating hormones (FSH) to overstimulate the ovaries into producing an artificially high number of eggs. She later injects human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) which helps eggs to mature for retrieval. On the day of collection, the woman is sedated; eggs are collected using a needle that's passed through the vaginal wall and punctures each ovary repeatedly, gathering fluid from each follicle (the fluid contains the eggs). And this is where ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) can cause problems. If fluid leaks out of the swollen ovaries during collection, it can spread around the body; blood clots can develop, which can be fatal. There’s no way to stop this once it starts. Two women in the UK died as a result in 2005/6. Complications experienced by women who contacted me include suffering from bowel perforations, sepsis, cysts and passing out from the pain of the procedure, with some even being held down by nurses to hold the ovaries in the right position during collection. We believe this to be a form of gynaecological violence against women. It is unacceptable to ask women to do this for the benefit of strangers. Younger women are at greater risk of OHSS; the very group targeted by egg donor adverts. 53 women developed severe or critical cases of OHSS last year, and an estimated 30% of women undergoing egg harvesting develop symptoms. The Department for Health and Social Care has told me they have not seen or undertaken any studies into the long-term harms of egg harvesting. And the Scottish Government, which targets women and men as young as 18 in publicly funded adverts for their eggs and sperm, haven’t done so either. Adverts asking women to donate their eggs don’t have to list health risks. Payment for gametes, and adverts seeking donors, should be banned completely. If adverts are to be allowed to continue, health risks must be listed upfront. The minimum age for donation, 18, is too low. Those of us who take an interest in women’s and children’s rights owe it to young women to ask questions, hold Government to account, and ask bodies such as the HFEA just whose interests they are pursuing. More information on issues around surrogacy can be found on the Surrogacy Concern website .

By Carolyn Brown and Mary Howden WRN Scotland and ScotPAG’s FOI Report (August 2024) In light of the Cass Report (CR) recommendations, published April 2024, Women’s Rights Network (WRN) Scotland and ScotPAG collaborated to find out what action has been taken by our local councils to implement the CR recommendations. Our focus was with the CR’s particular concerns about education and social work. The CR advised that assessment and support of gender questioning children should be ‘holistic’ and not driven by a “contested belief”. We aimed to find out what council education services and social work services had done to address these concerns. Education and Social Work Services Guidance Applied Currently in Scotland In education, “Supporting transgender young people in schools: guidance for Scottish schools” has been available to schools since 12th August 2021. The Care Inspectorate “Guidance for children and young people’s services on the inclusion of transgender including non-binary young people” for social work services has been available since May 2024. Both WRN Scotland and ScotPAG are agreed that the evidence to date from the CR and international research is that the source of the huge increase in gender questioning children, stems from the known phenomena of social contagion, media influence and “product placement” of the term ‘transgender’ within schools and our public services. It is clear that our health, education and social services should remove gender affirming and social transition policies from all institutions with immediate effect. For the sake of the emotional wellbeing of all our children and staff, the concept that any individual can change sex should be removed from all aspects of our public institutions. The CR states: “ …no individual journey begins at the front door of the NHS, rather in the child’s home, family and school environment. The importance of what happens in school cannot be under-estimated; this applies to all aspects of children’s health and wellbeing. Schools have been grappling with how they should respond when a pupil says that they want to socially transition in the school setting. For this reason, it is important that school guidance is able to utilise some of the principles and evidence from the Review ” (12.6 p158).3 What Our FOI Report Found 1. All councils reported that they are currently referring their education and social services to the respective Scottish Government and Care Inspectorate guidance relating to children who call themselves “transgender”. 2. No Council has undertaken a critical review of their policies in light of the CR. In effect, all Councils continue to support the gender affirming approach embedded in both education and social work guidance promoted by the Scottish Government. 3. The Scottish Government has chosen to promote ideologically driven guidance for schools and social work services instead of developing guidance informed by evidence-based research. As a result, the Scottish Government has created safeguarding issues within its public services. WRN Scotland and ScotPAG are alerting anyone who will listen to our major concerns about the implications that exist with regard to the protection of vulnerable children and teenagers. WRN Scotland and ScotPAG sent all CEO’S of Councils a copy of our report on 10.09.2024. To date we have had no response from any Council. Read our full report here