Police “Will Not Rush” to Ban Trans Officers From Strip-Searching Women
Police chiefs are dragging their feet on banning trans officers from strip-searching women – despite a Supreme Court ruling that sex is biological. The Telegraph has the story.
Forces have been accused of a “stunning lack of urgency” after saying they would not immediately respond to the ruling.
A day after the landmark ruling on April 17th, Chief Constable Rachel Swann, the diversity lead of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), told forces it “welcomed the clarity” but insisted “we will not rush our response”.
On Saturday, an NPCC spokesman told the Telegraph that, in the absence of national guidance, “forces should make decisions [about strip-searches by trans officers] on a case-by-case basis”.
The Telegraph understands that, in practice, this means opposite-sex strip-searches are still allowed in territorial forces across the UK.
This marks the first time forces beyond British Transport Police have clarified their policies on trans strip-searches following the ruling.
Sussex, Merseyside, Northumbria and Surrey Police all confirmed trans officers could still conduct strip or intimate searches on detainees who share their gender identity, but not their biological sex.
Trans people in custody, likewise, may be searched by officers in line with their gender presentation. …
In internal communications on April 17th, Chief Constable Swann thanked senior officers for their “patience” saying: “I welcome the clarity that the decision at the Supreme Court has provided and will be reviewing our policies and procedures in accordance with the outcome.
“However, we will not rush our response to this landmark ruling. We will need time to consider the full implications of the court’s decision, as will many other public bodies.”
Rank-and-file officers have voiced deep frustration at this stance.
A female officer from Northumbria Police described the NPCC position as “keep calm and carry on – we hate this ruling and are looking at options to circumvent it.”
The whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “The messaging we’re getting as officers reveals a stunning lack of urgency. There’s no rush to review policy.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well that haircut looks non-regulation to me, crikey… I can’t think there’s many trans police officers and surely there’s even less chance of being strip-searched by someone of the opposite sex as there’s plenty of female officers on the force. Nevertheless, this shouldn’t even be a thing in the first place, but look how captured the police are by the woke mind virus;
”@PoliceChiefs
think they have the luxury of time following the Supreme Court ruling. They don’t want to ‘rush’.
In the meantime, police forces are in breach of the law and are now also in active defiance of the law. This is a damning indication of ideological capture at the highest level. It is terrifying.
The Supreme Court decision is clear. We should not have to remind the police service of the law, yet we are repeatedly having to do just that.
This is State Sanctioned Sexual Assault. Write to your own Chief Constable and PCC. Remind them that they are obliged to follow the law.”
https://x.com/WomensRightsNet/status/1918740347875660213
Because it’s never been about fairness or equality for these people. I’d bet money that even if the FA and other sporting bodies were able to have enough MtF trans participants, they wouldn’t want their own category, just like they don’t want unisex loos. They’re all about invading female spaces and violating our boundaries;
”Transgender women are threatening to defy the Football Association’s ban on those born male playing in women’s football in England.
The rule change, set to come into force on June 1, follows last month’s Supreme Court ruling on single-sex spaces.
Telegraph Sport has revealed that WhatsApp messages show players in a women’s league plotting to ignore the ban.
Around 20 transgender women will be affected by the FA’s decision, which has sparked fierce opposition from those impacted.”
https://www.gbnews.com/sport/football/transgender-players-fa-ban-2671887222
perhaps they can organise a trans-only 5-a-side competition. Big corporations will be falling over themselves to sponsor it
But seriously, if this Supreme Court ruling cannot be policed and enforced then what’s the point, really? Because I’ve now lost count of the amount of organizations who are coming out in opposition to this and demonstrating solidarity with the trans ideology. So they’re basically opposing female sex-based rights and safety, then. The mind boggles when you think about the cognitive dissonance necessary to take this stance but to also say you care about any female loved ones and their rights. These people are delusional. Take for instance ( and this should surprise precisely no-one ) the ‘Feminist academics and educators’. In case you needed reminding of what feminists stand for nowadays, have a read of the excerpt in this link. They’ll be advocating for Sharia Law next, it’s so nonsensical and at odds with what they used to be known for;
”A statement defying the Supreme Court judgment has been signed by 1600 academics.
They call it “harmful”, “transphobic” and a “victory for the patriarchy”.
They state that women should not be defined by biology and that “trans women are women”.
https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1918302353834316145
Source: ( as of today, 2573 co-signatures )
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1UZmaZ4QCXU-b-NcBManyo9-AIZtQlxLDWpTP09goaiY/mobilebasic?pli=1
If the police can’t even police themselves and abide by the law, as clarified categorically by the SC, how can we expect them to enforce the law on any others who think they have some God given right to pick and choose which laws they’ll abide to?
There are plenty of laws (statutes) I don’t like, but you defy them at your own peril.
Maybe the Home Office should consider removing some of these senior officers from duty, or better still scrap the NPCC – except of course it’s Labour in charge, and their MP’s and Ministers are just as likely to oppose and possibly defy the SC ruling if it benefits their careers and woke identities.
She looks like my lesbian Nan.
How long until I get a knock on my door from at least 6 cops?
Just before I retired from the Met, there was an intranet news item about a PC – who was a man – who claimed he was trans. Somedays he would come into work dressed/identifying as a man, and some days as a woman. He had *two* warrant cards issued to him, in his different identities. He was allowed to use whatever toilets he wished depending on how he felt that day. This was fully encouraged, supported, and championed by the senior levels of the Met. The responses to the news item were almost exclusively from colleagues who thought ‘he/she’ was very brave and was a trailblazer. There were a very small number with courage enough to hint that they thought this shouldn’t happen in the police service, but had to be *very* reserved in hinting at their true thoughts. Complaints would have had anyone railing against this oddball up before a Gross Misconduct panel. I have a vague memory of my posting something like “I retire in a few weeks, and won’t miss it.” Fortunately this chap was office-bound and not working on the streets or public-facing, although that was then and this is now. Whilst I didn’t conduct a… Read more »
If you did get searched by someone of the opposite sex, surely by consequence of the new ruling you would be able to sue the police?
I think it is already illegal for a male police officer to strip search a woman. So yes, I would agree that suing in this eventuality would – in any normal world – be successful.
Cue Chief Constable’s collar felt by well-paid Police and Crime Commissioner typically elected by a trivial percentage of the local electorate?
Message to the police. It is never in the public interest to refuse to enforce the law because a few serving officers might not agree with it.
I am sure it is already illegal for male officers to stripsearch women.
So…. the police are breaking the law if they allow male officers to stripsearch women.
There I was, thinking the police are there to represent and uphold the law. Silly me.
What law do you think they are breaking? I bet you a box of Smarties it’s just “guidance”.
It’s a good question… the way I understand it (probably wrongly!) is that the Supreme Court judgement in this case has confirmed for those who were in doubt that the status quo is correct; a man is a man, a woman is a woman. Ergo, it’s illegal for a trans woman (meaning, a man) to strip search a woman.
Christ, what a ridiculous conversation this is.
Smarties please.
For the purposes of the Equality Act a man is a man etc. But I strongly doubt there is anything more than guidance regarding strip searches. Maybe you could sue them for some kind of mistreatment but I doubt an officer who does it is committing a criminal offence. A quick internet search returned stuff from the college of policing that used the word “should”, not “must”.
My interpretation of the court judgement was that it’s fine to stop men pretending to be women from searching women – that stopping them would not be a breach of the Equality Act because “fantasy gender” is not a protected characteristic. Not that they HAD to stop them doing it.
There should be no trans coppers. None. The mentally ill cannot be given authority.
A great picture to show exactly why our former polices forces have now turned to shit as they became police services and fail to provide a service. How can somebody that looks at home in social services or some econutter group be a senior police office.