For the woman, separation from their children greatly increases the likelihood of suicide and self-harm.

....the men on the other hand feel free and happy when they are separated from their children.

Oh my...If you want to be with your children.....don´t do shit an get imprisoned...It is that simple.

Women want the privilege to escape responsiblity for their actions. They use children as shields for immunity from justice, that's one of the oldest and dirtiest tricks in the book. Pussy Pass alert.

If they can't handle true equality: stay in the kitchen.

"Women in custody remain locked into an inhumane system with heavy-handed levels of punishment, poorly trained staff, inadequate healthcare and sparse opportunities for rehabilitation and family contact," she told politics.co.uk

And men don't have this problem? What a load of bollocks. I really am starting to hate this country.

A couple of comments that have been gracefully published:

• What a bunch of sexist reteric. This world has gone potty with sexism. What gives. I thought (NOT) that feminism was about equality. Yeh right. Steve Mac, Sydney
• 
  
  Can you imagine the uproar if the headline had been 'Stop jailing men'. I forgot sexism only works one way!! If anyone, male or female, breaks the law they should face the consequences. Lets face it, you don't go to prison for a first offence shoplifting. Time to stop the bleeding heart liberal do-gooders, responsible for the decline in discipline and social failures in our society. Alastair, Linlithgow

And I wrote in, though not published (yet?):

This is typical feminist hypocrisy. When women kill their children, it's because they're "mentally ill, driven to it, can't cope, etc." but when men kill their children it's because "men are evil". When women break the law, they're victims - and *alleged* to be victims of d/v by ... some evil man, no doubt. When men break the law, it's because "men are evil" and deserve to be raped in prison, given inadequate healthcare, etc. etc. but it's ok - they're only men, so who cares, right? Certainly those claiming to be for 'equality' do NOT care one little bit, as demonstrated by this sexist demand for, yet again, preferencial treatment of women.
Does it not occur to the women's groups that men too miss their children, and statistics also confirm that children from fatherless homes also are more prone to enter a life of crime, violence, drugs and so forth... so using the children as pawns (gee, how unusual) to garner pity for women is a clear demonstration of the underhanded tactics of feminism.

Yet another indication that men need to look out for themselves. Why should women get to live in "residential facilities"? Huh? Harsh prisons are okay for men and not okay for women? The sheer bias (and the seeming inattention to it) is staggering.

I sometimes wonder if society is moving towards the sort of world whereby we will soon be looking at the sort of scenario where certain sectors of society will be "managed" in enclosed communities that are effectively prison camps.

Such is the desire of the state to micro-manage every aspect of peoples lives and the inability of them to control crime in free environments, I think its probably inevitable.

Single mothers living freely in the community and draining masses of resources off society should be damned greatful that they have freedom.

In the old days, they were largely kept in assylums for their own good!!

If they cant behave themselves, why the hell should wider soceity have to stand for it?

the UK has a national insanity called political correctness and it is now in the fulminating phase

trying to prove that your not politically incorrect is like trying to prove your insane

Quote from shaazam

the UK has a national insanity called political correctness and it is now in the fulminating phase

trying to prove that your not politically incorrect is like trying to prove your insane

I have never had any problems with the latter..

I saw BBC in Parliament a day ago and Harriet and a few other feminists were basically arguing that the women who break the law should not have to go to prison. They were part of an Equality Action group or some other typical lefty euphimism for let the gals get out of jail free no matter what.
The res manginas dutifully nodding in agreement.

Quote from gaynorbarry

Pushed by politics.co.uk on whether the plans would make men less equal than women in the eyes of the criminal justice system, Teresa Elwes of the Bromley Trust responded: "We are looking at equality at the outcome level."

Classic PC thinking, I'm surprised she's so honest about it

All the feeble arguments presented by this biased coalition of charities about not jailing non-violent women, could be equally argued for non-violent men.

Yes, the female prison population begins to rise, but that's only in accordance with an increase of female violence and crime. For example, recently a government study showed an increase of 30% in violent crimes by girls and young women, with a 2% decrease by boys and young men.

The female prison population still only accounts for 5-6% of the total UK prison population. Given the obvious disparity within the (in)justice system that punishes women far less severly than men, it's not a case of too many women in prison, there's not enough.

Sarah Campbell, of women's rights group The Fawcett Society, commented: "Prison for women simply isn't working.

What an affronting and hypocritical statement to justice and democracy, by the feminazi spokeswoman of one of the most insidious feminist misandric-ridden groups in existence.

Believe me they won't stop at community sentencing, once they've achieved this, they'll progress onto women serving a sentence at home subject to a mild curfew. Then maybe exoneration solely based on her word alone.

"However where a custodial sentence is appropriate we are ensuring the needs of women are understood and prioritised."

Prioritised? That's very telling. Whenever one group receives preferential treatment, it detracts from another. It also reinforces the idea one group is superior to another. And with any elevated group, less accountable.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Believe me they won't stop at community sentencing, once they've achieved this, they'll progress onto women serving a sentence at home subject to a mild curfew. Then maybe exoneration solely based on her word.

Yep. Soon it will be "but she just made a mistake! It would be immoral to separate her from her children! And it would be so mean" ..

Quote from novaseeker

Yep. Soon it will be "but she just made a mistake! It would be immoral to separate her from her children! And it would be so mean" ..

[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

The sad part is that the feminist double standard plays right into traditional chivalry - an unholy alliance

An interesting comment from the article's page:

I was told a few years ago that 'discrimination is to be identified by the victim'. It is up to a victim to decide what is or is not offensive or bigotted. As a man I can honestly say that no one thing has ever offended me as much as these proposals. Having campaigned about this issue now since as far back as 2001, when I first heard it suggested, my view is the same: it is persecution. The Corston Report only revealed half of the story. Simply look at the two studies carried out by The Prison Reform Trust and Mind between 2002 and 2005 and you will see that the findings were more or less the same. 72% of male prisoners and 70% of female prisoners have two or more mental health problems, including conditions like schizophrenia. Very shocking figures. Men are 5 times more likely to committ suicide in prison than not in prison, young men aged 15-17 are 18 times more likely to committ suicide in prison than not in prison. Why do they not care about equally vulnerable prisoners? As the comment below states why do they not care about fathers who miss their children? At the very least a report into the vulnerability of male prisoners is needed, since the Corston Report looked only into the vulnerability of female prisoners. Is this persecution? A simple test. A man who has schizophrenia, or another condition that could cause him to self-harm or committ suicide would receive no help while a woman who does not have this condition would. It is blatant persecution. But I'm sure that when it was allowable for landlords in the UK to put up signs like "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" there was some 'reason'. Or to send men to prison just because they were gay. In all cases, just ask the victim and you will understand that no persecution is justified. Richard, West Yorkshire