...the rest can all be filed under 'mental illness':
Terrorists and paedophiles can select from 51 different gender identities in a Home Office database of Britain’s most dangerous criminals.
WTAF?
Police chiefs have admitted that ‘no formal risk assessment’ was carried out before recording extremists and rapists as ‘androgyne’ and ‘pangender’. The list of obscure gender identities has been labelled ‘madness’ and the Home Secretary has been warned that failure to properly record criminals’ sex poses a risk to the public.
Last night Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said it showed police chiefs are ‘more interested in woke nonsense than arresting criminals’.
Clearly, this isn't just hyperbole, there's so much evidence...
The list of gender identities includes ‘pangender’, ‘transgender person’ and terms like ‘androgyne’ and ‘neutrois’. The database has a number of gender categories with the same meaning - such as ‘cis male’ and ‘cis man’ - as offenders have provided different answers or officials have recorded them in inconsistent ways.
If someone provides a clearly wrong answer, why accept it?
Dr Kath Murray, from policy analysts Murray Blackburn Mackenzie which obtained the data, said the list of gender identities shows that the Home Secretary needs to make recording data on sex mandatory. ‘At the risk of stating the obvious, it is hard to understand what possible operational value there is in knowing that a registered sex offender or a person convicted of terrorism may think of themselves as neutrois, pangender, or other such obscure terms more commonly found on Reddit discussion boards or Tumblr,’ she said.
When was this system brought into operation?
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘The ViSOR system was developed twenty-five years ago, in an effort to maximise the information collected and shared about known offenders and thereby help the police keep track of them.
Right, now, I know a thing or two about government IT systems, and there’s no way that a 25 year old database was designed with more than 2 options on a pick list. Twenty five years ago, we were relatively free of all the genderbollocks.
So either someone decided to to throw vast sums of money to update the pick lists (if that was actually possible, given how some government databases were built) or it was an open text field, and not a picklist at all.
And yes, it’s entirely possible that a government body wouldn’t see the pitfall herein, or would hire someone to build it who’d do what they asked without pointing out the problems that would arise…
‘Many aspects of the system are now outdated, and the Home Office is currently developing a brand new system, which will reflect modern requirements and reporting standards, and give the police the tools they need to manage the risk from the most dangerous offenders.’
Anyone want to bet against the new system having 52 gender identities for people to pick from?
9 comments:
Follow the money.
I thought there were 57 genders. Or was that Heinz?
Databases from 25 years ago were quite complex and it was possible to easily do this. Providing it was built with the latest SQL software at the time it is an easy matter to upgrade these fields. Maybe even without having to change the DB itself depending on what data type they used. Someone looking for using minimal data storage would use a single bit to record sex, making it either 0 or 1. But programmers around 2000 didn't care that much about storage so could use a character and store it as M or F. Leaving an easy way to update to 256 different sexes.
and 'or would hire someone to build it who’d do what they asked without pointing out the problems that would arise'
That is not how government work is done. The government defines what they want and the suppliers tell them via the bid process how much to do that and identify any bits that won't work and they can't meet. A statement like 'The sex/gender field must cater for the following genders with capability of updating with a further 100' Wouldn't be looked at twice as it is a Yes we can easily do that as that is what the customer wants. How it works operationally isn't an issue to the developer. This was seen in action on many NHS IT projects where the bean counters in Whitehall defined the systems and the users didn't get to see it until it was rolled out on their desktops.
Working for a Major financial institution we designed a database with the capability of 9999 genders in the early 90s. We only used 4 but at least we were ready for the woke madness.
There were also 9999 death statuses 7 were in use Yes, No, Maybe were the first three, I can't remember the last 4
The money IT companies make from government and local councils is truly obscene...
🤣
'Providing it was built with the latest SQL software at the time' - doubtful!
Not only do users not get to see it until it hits the desktop, often what happens is the originator department of the proposed system is swamped by other departments demanding a piece of the new system to carry out their functions too, leading to a lengthy desin process and the typical 'horse designed by committee' aspect of a lot of government systems.
Preparing for the zombie apocalypse as well as the genderwoo nonsense!
Post a Comment