Members of the ACPO are CONSTANTLY manipulating their sex. Usually with a short stroking motion.
So, essentially, PN reported on an outdated version of the guidance, without checking.
But I guess checking wouldn’t always fit the chatty, “my adventure” style of writing many T issues get treated with here.
But you are right, I have yet to find a government department or agency that marks all documents with dates or version numbers. I keep raising this as really bad practice, and they keep saying they understand and will amend their practice, but they don’t. So much for transparent government.
But that wouldn’t make a PN story, would it.
No. we posted the vesion of the guidance to which we were directed by the Home Office spokesperson whose responsibility it was to deal with this matter. They gave a link to the guidance as contained on the ACPO website – without the amend.
Given that the ACPO version was creating something of a stir in the trans community, i then spoke to ACPO, who referenced the version of guidance held on the HO website, which DID include the amend. Slightly bizarre cross-over there (ACPO citing HO and HO citing ACPO).
Otherwise, i would suggest that the initial check was more than adequate. THat said, how much checking did you do – dropping an e-mail, f’rinstance – before presuming that no checking was carried out?