J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, it is, they’re stating the obvious though, so it’s really a moot point.

For example I tend to be prejudiced against proctologists with hands like shovels.

It's not prejudiced to want a someone of the same sex to view your genitals, particularly if one has a negative experience before.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

It's not prejudiced to want a someone of the same sex to view your genitals, particularly if one has a negative experience before.

It is, and there’s nothing inherently wrong about being prejudiced against anyone or anything. It’s a feeling, one which humans feel every day (unless they have some sort of a mental health issue which precludes them from being able to feel prejudice). The fact that a person has had a negative experience before would undoubtedly influence their feeling of prejudice, but, and this is the important point - it’s their actions based upon their prejudices that are either negative or positive.

Nothing wrong with informing a person that you’re not into women, or you’re not into men, that’s prejudice, and if they attempt to humiliate you by suggesting there’s something wrong with you not being either into men or into women, then they’re simply an idiot who doesn’t understand what prejudice means.

A person can be prejudiced and simply keep their feelings to themselves, or they can treat a person or people favourably or unfavourably based upon their prejudices. An easier example is people are prejudiced in favour of people who share their opinions, and prejudiced against those people who don’t.


Prejudice is an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived, usually unfavourable, evaluation of another person based on that person's political affiliation, sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, beauty, occupation, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics.

Prejudice can also refer to unfounded or pigeonholed beliefs and it may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence". Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience". Auestad (2015) defines prejudice as characterised by 'symbolic transfer', transfer of a value-laden meaning content onto a socially formed category and then on to individuals who are taken to belong to that category, resistance to change, and overgeneralization.


It was why I was surprised when Gruffalox included me in the group of people who claim that “trans women are women”, when I have never claimed any such thing. Their belief was based upon prejudice against me for opinions that I have expressed, but when the opinions of people who are transsexual agree with hers, she is prejudiced towards treating their opinions favourably, as one would expect when an opinion agrees with their own :pac:

The important point is how one treats people whose opinions don’t agree with theirs. That’s why I was surprised when JK of all people took the piss out of the use of language in the article she shared in the tweet, and then tried to play the victim when people were keen to express their offended feelings about her actions. Like so many before her, as we now know, JK is only interested in free speech for people who share her opinions -


“Unless we take that absolute position without caveats or apologies we have set foot upon a road with only one destination,” she told her New York audience. “If my offended feelings can justify a travel ban on Donald Trump, I have no moral grounds on which to argue that those offended by feminism, or the fight for transgender rights, or universal suffrage, should not oppress campaigners for those causes”.


JK Rowling defends Donald Trump's right to be 'offensive and bigoted'


One would expect that by her own standards, JK would be defending people who express their opinions of her freely, instead of playing the victim and trying to get the opinions of people whom she doesn’t agree with, suppressed.


I don’t agree with her stated opinions that people should have a right to free speech btw, and I don’t agree with the disproportionate backlash she is getting for what she did either.

TheValeyard

They've gone to far.

They want Paw Patrol cancelled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/arts/television/protests-fictional-cops.amp.html

I know its only half hearted, but jaysus,
If they cancelled Paw Patrol, they would be dealing with a 3 year old here starting his own revolution!

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, and there’s nothing inherently wrong about being prejudiced against anyone or anything. It’s a feeling, one which humans feel every day (unless they have some sort of a mental health issue which precludes them from being able to feel prejudice). The fact that a person has had a negative experience before would undoubtedly influence their feeling of prejudice, but, and this is the important point - it’s their actions based upon their prejudices that are either negative or positive.

Nothing wrong with informing a person that you’re not into women, or you’re not into men, that’s prejudice, and if they attempt to humiliate you by suggesting there’s something wrong with you not being either into men or into women, then they’re simply an idiot who doesn’t understand what prejudice means.

A person can be prejudiced and simply keep their feelings to themselves, or they can treat a person or people favourably or unfavourably based upon their prejudices. An easier example is people are prejudiced in favour of people who share their opinions, and prejudiced against those people who don’t.


Prejudice is an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived, usually unfavourable, evaluation of another person based on that person's political affiliation, sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, beauty, occupation, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics.

Prejudice can also refer to unfounded or pigeonholed beliefs and it may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence". Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience". Auestad (2015) defines prejudice as characterised by 'symbolic transfer', transfer of a value-laden meaning content onto a socially formed category and then on to individuals who are taken to belong to that category, resistance to change, and overgeneralization.


It was why I was surprised when Gruffalox included me in the group of people who claim that “trans women are women”, when I have never claimed any such thing. Their belief was based upon prejudice against me for opinions that I have expressed, but when the opinions of people who are transsexual agree with hers, she is prejudiced towards treating their opinions favourably, as one would expect when an opinion agrees with their own :pac:

The important point is how one treats people whose opinions don’t agree with theirs. That’s why I was surprised when JK of all people took the piss out of the use of language in the article she shared in the tweet, and then tried to play the victim when people were keen to express their offended feelings about her actions. Like so many before her, as we now know, JK is only interested in free speech for people who share her opinions -


“Unless we take that absolute position without caveats or apologies we have set foot upon a road with only one destination,” she told her New York audience. “If my offended feelings can justify a travel ban on Donald Trump, I have no moral grounds on which to argue that those offended by feminism, or the fight for transgender rights, or universal suffrage, should not oppress campaigners for those causes”.


JK Rowling defends Donald Trump's right to be 'offensive and bigoted'


One would expect that by her own standards, JK would be defending people who express their opinions of her freely, instead of playing the victim and trying to get the opinions of people whom she doesn’t agree with, suppressed.


I don’t agree with her stated opinions that people should have a right to free speech btw, and I don’t agree with the disproportionate backlash she is getting for what she did either.

Yes, any unreasonable attitude. Wanting a person of the same sex to look at and/or penetrate you during a medical exam is not unreasonable.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Yes, any unreasonable attitude. Wanting a person of the same sex to look at and/or penetrate you during a medical exam is not unreasonable.

It’s still prejudice, but of course it’s not unreasonable. That’s why if someone were to accuse me of being prejudiced because I didn’t want to have sex with them, I wouldn’t legitimise their nonsense by trying to defend myself against it. It’s why I don’t use terms like transphobe and all the rest of it. It’s prejudice against a person or group of people whom I have no interest in and don’t want to know. An entirely reasonable prejudice.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s still prejudice, but of course it’s not unreasonable. That’s why if someone were to accuse me of being prejudiced because I didn’t want to have sex with them, I wouldn’t legitimise their nonsense by trying to defend myself against it. It’s why I don’t use terms like transphobe and all the rest of it. It’s prejudice against a person or group of people whom I have no interest in and don’t want to know. An entirely reasonable prejudice.

If it's not unreasonable then it is not prejudiced, this even according to the definition you gave:

Prejudice can also refer to unfounded or pigeonholed beliefs and it may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence". Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience". Auestad (2015) defines prejudice as characterised by 'symbolic transfer', transfer of a value-laden meaning content onto a socially formed category and then on to individuals who are taken to belong to that category, resistance to change, and overgeneralization.

I have never said prejudice is necessarily always bad, I agree that it's not. But in the situation we are talking about, prejudiced it is not to want someone of the same sex.

Even the second highlighted part; the poster stated that they had a negative experience with a previous male gynaecologist, so even in this case their reason is based on actual experience.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, and there’s nothing inherently wrong about being prejudiced against anyone or anything. It’s a feeling, one which humans feel every day (unless they have some sort of a mental health issue which precludes them from being able to feel prejudice). The fact that a person has had a negative experience before would undoubtedly influence their feeling of prejudice, but..

You are not using prejudice correctly here. Having a negative prior experience isn't prejudice ( it is judgment). You prove this by quoting this:

Prejudice can also refer to unfounded or pigeonholed beliefs and it may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence". Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience".

It has to be a judgement prior to engaging with someone, based on their group identity, or physical attributes, or whatever

It was why I was surprised when Gruffalox included me in the group of people who claim that “trans women are women”, when I have never claimed any such thing. Their belief was based upon prejudice against me for opinions that I have expressed,

This is a total misuse of the term prejudice, because Gruffalox didn't pre judge your writings, she judged them based one opinions you have expressed. How could she pre judge someone she didn't and doesn't know?

As for whether you believe that "trans women are women" or not, it's fairly clear you don't want any distinction made in practice.

That said you write so unclearly who can tell.

Woodsie1

FVP3 wrote: »

That said you write so unclearly who can tell.

This posters does it on purpose so he can weasel his way out of any contradiction to anything hes posted.I swear the lad is getting paid by the word from boards.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

As for whether you believe that "trans women are women" or not, it's fairly clear you don't want any distinction made in practice.

That said you write so unclearly who can tell.

There were several ways given in which prejudice is defined, yourself and Cleven picked the one that suited you. There’s a word for that.

It’s not that I write unclearly, it’s simply that you’re choosing to infer what you want from what I’ve written. There’s a word for that too.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There were several ways given in which prejudice is defined, yourself and Cleven picked the one that suited you. There’s a word for that.

It’s not that I write unclearly, it’s simply that you’re choosing to infer what you want from what I’ve written. There’s a word for that too.

I have shown how 2 of your defintions don't need meet the criteria required. Here's another:

"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience".

Now we have both agreed that it is not unreasonable to want someone of the same sex to touch and/or penetrate your genitalia in a medical setting. So that covers the reason part. The poster in question stated that they had a previous negative experience, so that covers the actual experience part.

Just admit to yourself that you were wrong. It doesn't matter, it's no big deal. It doesn't somehow invalidate your other contributions to the thread.

https://www.google.com/search?q=prejudice+meaning&oq=prejudice&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l6.2875j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

One eyed Jack

Woodsie1 wrote: »

This posters does it on purpose so he can weasel his way out of any contradiction to anything hes posted.I swear the lad is getting paid by the word from boards.

How can I weasel out of something I never realised I was being asked in the first place?

As far as I was concerned I wasn’t being asked about anything relating to having claimed that “trans women are women”, because I never made the claim in the first place!

I don’t think they are. However what I think, and Irish law, are two very different things, and that’s why I made the point that even if a woman does think it’s a man is getting dressed across from them, and she has a right to ask that the person be removed from the changing room, the management have the right to remove her from the dressing room instead, though they would be more likely to tell her to cop onto herself.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Just admit to yourself that you were wrong. It doesn't matter, it's no big deal.

Why would anyone do that when they know they’re not wrong? It is a big deal when you’re telling someone to admit to themselves they’re wrong and they know they’re not wrong. It does matter, and it’s the whole point of this thread.

JK was trying to highlight that in her opinion an organisation used the wrong word, while advocating for free speech. Same thing as you’re doing - no big deal when she can say what she likes, but everyone else should just admit to themselves they’re using the wrong word.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would anyone do that when they know they’re not wrong? It is a big deal when you’re telling someone to admit to themselves they’re wrong and they know they’re not wrong. It does matter, and it’s the whole point of this thread.

JK was trying to highlight that in her opinion an organisation used the wrong word, while advocating for free speech. Same thing as you’re doing - no big deal when she can say what she likes, but everyone else should just admit to themselves they’re using the wrong word.

I have pointed out why in posts 1747 and 1751 why you are wrong. Wanting someone who is of the same sex to you to touch or in anyway inspect your genitalia is not unreasonable and as such not prejudiced.. You even admitted this yourself, to your credit.

SouthWesterly

TheValeyard wrote: »

They've gone to far.

They want Paw Patrol cancelled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/arts/television/protests-fictional-cops.amp.html

I know its only half hearted, but jaysus,
If they cancelled Paw Patrol, they would be dealing with a 3 year old here starting his own revolution!

I can live with PP, but Lego as well????

The world has gone mad.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bambi wrote: »

Yeah, Hopefully others will learn to keep their mouths shut if they know whats good for them, eh? :rolleyes:

Honestly, I think that’s the goal of the people who dogpiled her. To stop others doing the same as her. It’s quite sinister. Slowly but surely, she’s gaining support from other prominent people though. One thing I’ve noticed is there’s an unattractive ageism coming out against the people defending her. People calling them over the hill, washed up, past their peak. It’s classy, classy stuff.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I have pointed out why in posts 1747 and 1751 why you are wrong. Wanting someone who is of the same sex to you to touch or in anyway inspect your genitalia is not unreasonable and as such not prejudiced. You even admitted this yourself, to your credit.

Don’t do like the earlier poster with the “biological women” stuff, never at any point did I say it wasn’t prejudice. You’re conflating two separate things to try and make out I said something I didn’t. Given the way you told me to admit to myself I’m wrong earlier and now telling me I admitted it myself earlier, there’s no need to give me credit for anything I never said. Seeing as it’s no big deal to you though, I’m going to leave it there.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don’t do like the earlier poster with the “biological women” stuff, never at any point did I say it wasn’t prejudice. You’re conflating two separate things to try and make out I said something I didn’t. Given the way you told me to admit to myself I’m wrong earlier and now telling me I admitted it myself earlier, there’s no need to give me credit for anything I never said. Seeing as it’s no big deal to you though, I’m going to leave it there.

Sorry, I didn't write that correctly and it comes across as if I am putting words in your mouth yes. I meant to say you admitted that it is not unreasonable, and what I am suggesting is, as such, it is not prejudice.

ceadaoin.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Honestly, I think that’s the goal of the people who dogpiled her. To stop others doing the same as her. It’s quite sinister. Slowly but surely, she’s gaining support from other prominent people though. One thing I’ve noticed is there’s an unattractive ageism coming out against the people defending her. People calling them over the hill, washed up, past their peak. It’s classy, classy stuff.

Oh so they're of a "certain age", therefore their opinion can be discounted. Sounds familar doesnt it? Maybe they are spinsters too.

Woodsie1

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh so they're of a "certain age"? Sounds familar doesnt it? Maybe they are spinsters too.

Or "haggard" was the other word i saw:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't write that correctly and it comes across as if I am putting words in your mouth yes. I meant to say you admitted that it is not unreasonable, and what I am suggesting is, as such, it is not prejudice.

Prejudice is not defined as what is reasonable or unreasonable. Prejudice is just the feeling. Reasonable or unreasonable relates to the idea. That’s why céadaoin gave the example where some people were saying that prejudice (a feeling) against a male performing an intimate examination (predicated upon the idea that they would be uncomfortable) was unreasonable, and céadaoin was making the point that it isn’t prejudice, whereas what it really isn’t, is unreasonable.

It’s why I said that they didn’t understand what prejudice is, because they view the idea as unreasonable, and that’s what they call prejudice. My point is that prejudice is not the idea, it’s the feeling, either positive towards, or negative against an idea.

It’s why when someone uses an appeal to emotion such as the idea that with self-ID legislation predatory males will be granted unfettered access to female spaces is a fallacious argument. Their error is compounded when they personally attack anyone who points out that they are playing on people’s prejudices against males.

The reason I point it out is because the logical conclusion of their argument is that the same males must then accept the idea of ‘rape culture’, which justifies discrimination against males, based upon nothing more than a prejudice against males, under the guise of saying that they’re just protecting females from predatory males. It’s a completely disproportionate response to the percentage of males who are estimated to be sexual predators, somewhere in the region of 7%. That’s 93% of males who are not sexual predators.

Using prejudice against males based upon the behaviour of what could only be a tiny percentage of the male population, to suggest that people who are transgender should be denied legal recognition is demonstrably unreasonable, because not only would it not protect females from predatory males, not only would it continue to deny people who are transgender legal recognition, but it perpetuates prejudice against males too.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Prejudice is not defined as what is reasonable or unreasonable. Prejudice is just the feeling. Reasonable or unreasonable relates to the idea. That’s why céadaoin gave the example where some people were saying that prejudice (a feeling) against a male performing an intimate examination (predicated upon the idea that they would be uncomfortable) was unreasonable, and céadaoin was making the point that it isn’t prejudice, whereas what it really isn’t, is unreasonable.

It’s why I said that they didn’t understand what prejudice is, because they view the idea as unreasonable, and that’s what they call prejudice. My point is that prejudice is not the idea, it’s the feeling, either positive towards, or negative against an idea.

It’s why when someone uses an appeal to emotion such as the idea that with self-ID legislation predatory males will be granted unfettered access to female spaces is a fallacious argument. Their error is compounded when they personally attack anyone who points out that they are playing on people’s prejudices against males.

The reason I point it out is because the logical conclusion of their argument is that the same males must then accept the idea of ‘rape culture’, which justifies discrimination against males, based upon nothing more than a prejudice against males, under the guise of saying that they’re just protecting females from predatory males. It’s a completely disproportionate response to the percentage of males who are estimated to be sexual predators, somewhere in the region of 7%. That’s 93% of males who are not sexual predators.

Using prejudice against males based upon the behaviour of what could only be a tiny percentage of the male population, to suggest that people who are transgender should be denied legal recognition is demonstrably unreasonable, because not only would it not protect females from predatory males, not only would it continue to deny people who are transgender legal recognition, but it perpetuates prejudice against males too.

The irony of you pre judging people's reactions to prejudice is delicious.

Pick a side jack:

Do YOU consider trans women to be actual women?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The irony of you pre judging people's reactions to prejudice is delicious.

Pick a side jack:

Do YOU consider trans women to be actual women?

I’m not prejudging anyone’s reactions when their argument is founded on perpetuating the belief that males are solely by virtue of their sex, inherently sexual predators. Some males are sexual predators, most males are not.

I don’t personally use the terms “trans women“ or “trans men” myself, because it legitimises the idea that humans can change their sex. They can’t. It’s a waste of time entertaining anyone who argues that humans can change their sex, and I simply don’t entertain the idea. At the same time, I don’t go looking for people to tell them they’re not the sex they purport to be. I don’t believe it’s right to go out of my way to humiliate anyone for their beliefs which I don’t share. It would be like making fun of people who I know are mentally ill. Who does that?

I don’t have to pick a side, but if I did, it wouldn’t be the one that goes out of their way to humiliate anyone. That’s why I said I don’t support anyone piling on JK. I know well she knows what she was doing, but people using that as an excuse to go out of their way to humiliate her, are no better.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not prejudging anyone’s reactions when their argument is founded on perpetuating the belief that males are solely by virtue of their sex, inherently sexual predators. Some males are sexual predators, most males are not.

I don’t personally use the terms “trans women“ or “trans men” myself, because it legitimises the idea that humans can change their sex. They can’t. It’s a waste of time entertaining anyone who argues that humans can change their sex, and I simply don’t entertain the idea. At the same time, I don’t go looking for people to tell them they’re not the sex they purport to be. I don’t believe it’s right to go out of my way to humiliate anyone for their beliefs which I don’t share. It would be like making fun of people who I know are mentally ill. Who does that?

I don’t have to pick a side, but if I did, it wouldn’t be the one that goes out of their way to humiliate anyone. That’s why I said I don’t support anyone piling on JK. I know well she knows what she was doing, but people using that as an excuse to go out of their way to humiliate her, are no better.

Jack, pointing out biological reality is not humiliating anyone. It's simply pointing out the way things are. When it comes to reality, beliefs don't matter.

Pointing out that only females can menustrate is pointing out biological reality, it is not engaging in a tactic of humiliation.

ceadaoin.

Look, people can bleat on all they like about how women preferring to get undressed in front of other women or have female gynecologists is unjustified prejudice and discrimination, whatever..women know the reasons we feel like that, we all do, and they (the people who try to "reeducate" us I mean) will never get it. Some might try to explain to us with many words how we're wrong for feeling that way but its water off a ducks back. We all know what its like.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not prejudging anyone’s reactions when their argument is founded on perpetuating the belief that males are solely by virtue of their sex, inherently sexual predators. Some males are sexual predators, most males are not.
.

People do not believe that males solely by their sex are inherently sexual predators. That is your judgement of what people believe.

All sensible people know that by far most males are not sexual predators.

Anecdotally among the people I know it is the men who get most incensed if hearing about sexual crime displaying a kind of atavistic reaction of instinctive abhorrence and a desire to ferociously punish the aggressor - these men know it could be their child, sibling or loved one being assaulted and it brings up deep fury.



All sensible people know or should know that some females sexually assault or facilitate sexual assault. It can be the mother who pimps out their child for sex abuse on a web cam in a far away country or a woman who facilitates predatory access to a vulnerable person. There are mothers, female lovers and female teachers who abuse.

With these qualifications we can still advance without prejudice to say the statistics are reasonably clear that the very small amount of males who sexually abuse do so in greater numbers outside of domestic spaces than female perpetrators. Female abusers tend to have a caretaker role in the abused person's life, or be an intimate partner.

Also public voyeurism, groping and public exposure is more common among male perpetrators than female.

Safeguarding in public environments cannot rid the world of all sexual abuse. It can only aim towards the abuse that happens in public settings.
This is one of the reasons why there are single sex facilities and males are not allowed to enter female facilities and vice versa.

Just as the vast majority of men are not sexual predators, and the vast majority of women are not sexual predators, so also the vast majority of transgender people are not sexual predators.
This is a fact along with the fact that male to female transgender people offend similarly to males.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

The same safeguarding policies should continue to apply in public spaces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Jack, pointing out biological reality is not humiliating anyone. It's simply pointing out the way things are. When it comes to reality, beliefs don't matter.

Pointing out that only females can menustrate is pointing out biological reality, it is not engaging in a tactic of humiliation.

Did the organisation ask for JK’s opinions on the matter?

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Did the organisation ask for JK’s opinions on the matter?

No, has anyone asked you for yours?

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

The same safeguarding policies should continue to apply in public spaces.

That’s a decision for the governing body to make, not a decision for the general public to make. Take for example prison policies - do governing bodies of the prison services ask the general public for their opinions on their policies? Of course they don’t. The general public don’t have the authority either to dictate how prison services should formulate their policies. Are there examples of failure in prison policies to protect people?

Of course there are -


The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to prevent "systemic breaches" of the human rights of inmates who were unlawfully strip searched at a privately-run prison, the High Court has ruled.

Four inmates at HMP Peterborough claimed the MoJ was required to ensure adequate and effective safeguards against breaches of their right to privacy were in place at the jail.

Sodexo, which runs the prison, admitted it was responsible for a "systemic failure" to follow MoJ rules on strip searches because it failed to properly train its staff.

The four claimants - three women and a transgender prisoner, who is transitioning from female to male - also sought a declaration from the High Court that the MoJ had failed in its responsibility to ensure Sodexo was not violating their human rights.

Giving his judgment in London, Mr Justice Julian Knowles found there were "numerous serious, systemic and widespread failures at HMP Peterborough ... which led to a number of strip searches being carried unlawfully".

The judge ruled: "The measures put in place by the Secretary of State (for Justice) to ensure that Sodexo had procedures in place to train its staff properly so that there were not systemic or widespread mistakes - which is an aspect of his duty to monitor and supervise - therefore failed.


Strip searches of women inmates at private prison 'were unlawful'


And there are procedures in place to review or remedy when either a policy fails, or is purposely violated by people who have a responsibility to adhere to the policies which are in place. These things are not decided by the general public on the basis of popular consensus.

lawred2

What I don't understand is why did she offer any opinion on this? I don't get it.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, has anyone asked you for yours?

Has anyone from the organisation asked for my opinion on what they should write in their own literature? No, they haven’t, and I never sought them out to give them my opinion either. The organisation didn’t ask for JK’s opinions, JK decided to take it upon herself to give them her opinion anyway by highlighting their literature and taking the piss out of it. If JK had an issue with what the organisation had written, she could have messaged them directly. Instead she chose to highlight publicly what she saw as their doing something wrong because she was personally offended by it.

She dragged an organisation which had done nothing wrong into her fight with someone else which they didn’t ask to be part of.