Suella Braverman is the Home Secretary for the United Kingdom and, apparently, she made some waves with her remarks today.
Convicted sex offenders in the UK will be banned for life from officially changing their name and gender, it is set to be announced today https://t.co/CiYVylK3Rd— ripx4nutmeg (@ripx4nutmeg) October 3, 2023
It’s nice to see some common sense. Here’s a bit of video where she announces it:
"I don't care if anyone thinks this is interfering with their human rights."— Sky News (@SkyNews) October 3, 2023
Home Secretary Suella Braverman calls for stricter rules to prevent "sexual predators" from changing identities, saying she cares more about the "rights of victims"https://t.co/xItZsH7tea
📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/lYhHvAjiYG
Actually, there’s a lot to love besides the transgender stuff, such as saying that they can’t let British cities “go the way of San Francisco or Seattle” (heh), or that they will deport foreign criminals. But the best part was saying “it’s time to worry less about the rights of sexual predators and more about the rights of victims.” It’s the kind of thing that used to be obvious.
And we get more goodness from that first article:
Suella Braverman will announce today a lifetime ban on sex offenders changing their name and gender in an attempt to close a loophole that is allowing criminals to evade the sex offence register.
Details from other government agencies including HMRC, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) HM Passport Office and the DVLA will be merged with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
Any change in a known sex offender’s details on any of those government agencies will alert the DBS and they will face prosecution, government sources told The Times.
The home secretary will use her speech at the Conservative party conference in Manchester to announce new legislation to introduce an outright ban on anyone convicted of a sex-related crime changing their identity, making it a new offence.
Currently, all registered sex offenders are required to notify their local police force within three days of changing their name. Failure to do so is a criminal offence but the onus is placed entirely on the offender to comply with the law.
One of the most frustrating elements of the transgender movement is the constant insistence that we should just trust their self-identification as a man, woman or whatever, on the assumption that absolutely no one would ever think about abusing it and the weird belief that we had to honor this nonsense with criminals. (This might be uniquely irksome to this author because he has had to prove his disabilities were real in onerous and often ridiculous ways on a regular basis for many years of his life.) The first time we even heard about this concern about “misgendering” came with Bradley Manning, who calls himself Chelsea—in part because our friend @gaypatriot was suspended (one of many times) on Twitter for calling him a man. Chelsea was convicted of serious crimes but we were supposed to care that we don’t offend him?
So now we are starting to see some pushback against the idea that a man convicted of multiple rapes should be allowed get put in a women’s prison because he says he is a woman. That doesn’t solve 100% of the problem—not every predator gets convicted, after all. Indeed, it is not clear that Braverman is addressing prisons at all. But it is a step toward sanity and it is welcome.
Although I fully support it I do wonder how it’s possible. I changed my name and there is no authority that approves or rejects it. Your name is yours.— Will Harley (@Hardley76) October 3, 2023
We are not experts on British law, but in America, if you want to legally change your name, you have to deal with a government office, and often have to petition to have it changed in court. Either way, that creates a record. We can’t imagine it being different in Britain. That could be used to detect and punish illegal identity changes.
Quite right.— Billy Bragg ... Other Billy Braggs are available (@PoisonGirlies) October 3, 2023
Jonathan Drakeford has since changed his name to Jay Humphrieshttps://t.co/gvFFpsWSsP
That’s a heck of an article:
Welsh first minister's rapist son breaches sex offender orders
A convicted rapist created a secret online dating username while on licence [release] from prison.
Jay Humphries, 36, was jailed in 2018 under his previous name Jonathan Drakeford. He is the son of First Minister Mark Drakeford.
Caernarfon Magistrates' Court heard he used an unapproved profile name on the Fab Guys website and deleted internet browsing history from his phone.
Humphries admitted both offences and will be sentenced on 11 August.
It’s not quite the same issue, but it is similar. And we are gratified to see it reported that no one ended up being hurt by him when breaching these court orders. But he was breaching rules put in place to prevent him from harming anyone else and they are going to punish him for that.
To understand @UKLabour’s gender predicament imagine them announcing they’ll repeal this law so sex offenders can be themselves— Sonya Douglas (@SonyaDouglas) October 3, 2023
Now imagine them explaining to their gender activists why that would be electoral suicide
Now, you tell me, are they for or against trans sex offenders? https://t.co/UqxKXS9vL5
It's starting to seem to me that conservative political parties across the West might finally realized they've got a once in a lifetime ability to steal enormous chunks of left leaning voters who would NEVER consider voting conservative before (and likely never will again) by… https://t.co/FyHyBkf7eE pic.twitter.com/iNUbbPsRZA— The Heretical Liberal 🇨🇦🏳️🌈 (@Rob_ThaBuilder) October 3, 2023
The full text:
It's starting to seem to me that conservative political parties across the West might finally realized they've got a once in a lifetime ability to steal enormous chunks of left leaning voters who would NEVER consider voting conservative before (and likely never will again) by coming out forcefully against the homophobic & misogynistic child mutilation cult that is gender ideology.
Defeating this dangerous new age religious cult has turned a whole lot of left leaning, self identified liberals/progressives into one-issue voters.
We could call it the J.K. Rowling syndrome.
And here’s a funny pair of posts:
Oh another wonderful day to be a TERF 💚🤍💜 https://t.co/CoBaxbvH2E— EmmaT ima/little/tea/pot (@EmmaTurner12) October 3, 2023
Looks like sanity is returning to TERF Island. Keep up the good work, ye merry TERFs! https://t.co/CE7SLCphC2— Holly Grayle (@HollyGrayle) October 3, 2023
TERF, of course, stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. But these days it is just a way of screeching at any woman who goes against transgender ideology. For instance, our own Sam is regularly called a TERF, despite the fact that no one could rationally call her a radical feminist—so the term doesn’t really fit her.
But the second post did something different. It very clearly used TERF as a term of affection or pride. It led me to wonder: Were some women taking ownership of the term and making it their own? It even led us to reexamine the first post and reassess. When we first saw it, we thought she was being negative. But the hearts makes us think she is saying TERF in a similarly positive way.
This has nothing to do with public protection and everything to do with winning a few votes.— 1552 (@No1552) October 3, 2023
Names used and changes to, are already a notification requirement, in fact a name change can assist effective RSO management.https://t.co/OyH1iK26UK https://t.co/dgLyWiesX3
God forbid that government officials do what the people want. We can’t have that.
Good. But-That this even needs to be done.— 𝓙𝓪𝓷𝓮 É𝓲𝓻𝓮 (@cyberfrontier) October 3, 2023
Thanks Gender Cultists. 🙄 https://t.co/kkVyWjseky
This will not survive a hearing in the courts. https://t.co/TqRpPolOfY— OJ (@OJLonTweets) October 3, 2023
Again, maybe we are ignorant, but we don’t believe British courts have any way to overturn a properly promulgated law. Like Britain doesn’t have any kind of written constitution, so there is no way to say “this is illegal because it violates the Constitution.”
The only instance we ever heard of something like that was Dr. Bonham’s case:
“In many cases,the common law will controul Acts of Parliament,& sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void:for when an Act of Parliament is against common right& reason,or repugnant, the common law will controul it,& adjudge such Act to be void.”— Lepa Dinis(彫 霊 波) Article 61 Of Magna Carta 1215 (@LepaDinis) October 23, 2021
Ruling of Dr Bonham’s Case 1610
That case involved the regulation of the medical profession by doctors and the court said that was illegal, because no one can be a judge in their own case, therefore that law was “unreasonable” and void. So that’s a bit of an open door but our understanding is it is pretty much never done in British courts.
By the way, the founders of our Constitution often made reference to Dr. Bonham’s case if you know what to look for. For instance, in Federalist #10, Madison writes “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause” a clear reference to the principle behind that case. Make of that what you will.
Some days I'm proud to live in Terf Island https://t.co/B7Id7ayfIF— Ishanaxade (@ishanaxade) October 3, 2023
Why is the UK suddenly becoming based? https://t.co/T9fRBKr8bg— JT (@JustPas80741539) October 3, 2023
They start by taking away the rights of offenders. Then slowly they erode your own rights before there’s nothing left but total domination and ideology.— Rich (@BobasGaffiStick) October 3, 2023
This party is nothing but a bunch of ghouls clinging on. Time to kick them back in the crypt and say no. https://t.co/g27KHtNORa
Yes, clearly telling people they are not entitled to government recognition of their mental illness is one step from the death camps.
How many #trans people have done this @SuellaBraverman? 🤔 This transphobic fear mongering puts a vulnerable population in unnecessary danger based on your lies. Secondly, keep America & American’s name out of your mouth while you do the dirty work of your WS masters. OWN IT! 😡 https://t.co/U3CAkWTSAd— Ananda the Citizen (@apwantstoknow) October 3, 2023
What is an acceptable number of women and little girls being victimized?
Have never seen anything more dystopian and surreal than this. Like I watched this (while being incredibly angry) but also in utter disbelief that this is the reality of our lives, and that it isn't just another Black Mirror episode. https://t.co/SApPVJD05c— Brigitte Krause (@TheBrigitteEdit) October 3, 2023
somehow people will still find an issue with this policy just wait and see. https://t.co/gFpy1ttyYS— アーネスト (@nekkbk) October 3, 2023
But at least one person doubted anything would come of it:
This'll never come to pass. They'll talk a big game on it but it'll be quietly shelved. https://t.co/KJXj2IGlFK— Rose of Dawn (@Rose_Of_Dawn) October 3, 2023
That statement has a familiar ring in America, but we can’t say if she is right. So, we will only say we shall see, and, if we were British, we would demand that she keep her word.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!