Senior management relented
Nicola Sturgeon faces another trans storm after a decision was made to house one of Scotland’s most violent prisoners in a women’s jail. The Record can reveal that volatile Tiffany Scott – who stalked a 13-year-old girl while known as Andrew Burns – has been rubber-stamped for transfer to a jail that aligns with her chosen gender.
Scott, 31, has been repeatedly refused the switch over several years but senior management relented in recent weeks. It is understood that the transfer is still planned – despite the First Minister instructing a U-turn on a decision to house double rapist Isla Bryson at all-women jail Cornton Vale, Stirling, on Thursday.javascript:void(0)
Last night the Scottish Government faced calls to make another embarrassing U-turn on Scott. A source said: “Of all the female trans prisoners in the estate, Scott has been considered the most dangerous.”
Interesting choice then. “Let’s start with the most dangerous man who calls himself a woman. Once he I mean she is in, the rest will be a doddle.”
The source continued:
“This highly disturbed prisoner has attacked female staff during time in prison, has admitted stalking a young girl and has been one of the most menacing people inside Scottish jails. It’s madness to send her to a women’s jail – there needs to be a better solution than this.”
…
Scott, 32, from Kinglassie, Fife, is being held in segregation at LowMoss Prison, near Glasgow.
She has assaulted inmates, security officers and female nurses in various jails. She self-harmed and opened veins with her teeth before squirting blood at prison officers.
In 2010, Scott, while still Burns, attacked a nurse while escaping from a Cheshire hospital while under detention, throwing roof tiles at police during a siege on the hospital roof. In 2013, Scott, while still Burns, was sentenced to 14 months for stalking a 13-year-old girl from a cell at Polmont Prison, near Falkirk, by sending letters.
He sounds very Hannibal Lecter, doesn’t he.
News flash: “Scott” is still Burns..
Why does the media feel the need to honour and respect the wishes of a convicted felon? Particularly wishes that serve to conceal his past and make it harder for people to identify him? Is that what style guides are for? At least they throw us a sop by using the construction “Scott, while still Burns.” (I wonder if that would have been the case a couple of years ago, when the pushback against men in women’s prisons was not as widely reported, or reported at all).Clumsy, and still giving the impression that “Scott” is now a different person, with Burns, somehow, left behind in the past. Nope. No real change at all: new name, new pronouns, but still the same old criminal.
My guess is because it is possible to change names legally, and changing names is a social or political or legal category rather than a physical one. Of course it can be done to trick and deceive and cover up, but it’s not an absurd impossibility the way “changing sex” is. That’s why I try to remember to say things like “formerly [previous name]” as opposed to using scare-quotes. It’s an annoying muddle. Changing names is part of the trickery but it doesn’t rely on magical beliefs.
YNNB, that’s what the APA style guide is for. See the 7th edition, section 5.5.
Petitions to legally change a name are not automatic. The court does have discretion to deny a request to change a name. If the name change has a fraudulent purpose — e.g., to hide a past criminal record — the court is fully justified in denying the petition. Men who commit serious crimes should forfeit any right to masquerade under a false and misleading name.
I’m seeing tweets which are saying Scott has been released instead of being transferred. Sounds like someone is setting up a “Look what the TERFs made me do!” Excuse for when he offends again.
From over here in the liberal paradise of Merrie England, the concept of a fixed, singular “legal” name seems excessively authoritarian and the idea of having to seek permission from the courts to use another positively Napoleonic.
In all right and proper (common law) legal systems, a free person’s names are merely any which they are known by (or by which they are known, if there are any authoritarian grammarists in earshot). The accompanying principle is of course that no-one is coerced to use a particular name for another other than such social considerations as politeness. Everybody has an absolute right to request that others use a name of their choosing, but everybody else has a right to decide for themselves whether this is reasonable, and certainly has a right to retain the memory of other (past) names and to use or point them out if that seems germane.
The above is all partly tongue-in-cheek, you decide which parts. Also, IANAL, etc. :-P