Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Labour promises bill to protect women and girls in wake of Sarah Everard killing

30 replies

stumbledin · 12/04/2021 00:10

I cant find this on the labour party web site, but apparently they are putting forward a bill to make those harsher sentencing for violence against women. eg:

"It would end the anomaly that sees men convicted of killing their partner at home receiving sentences as much as 10 years shorter than those who murder a stranger in the street."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sarah-everard-keir-starmer-women-b1829712.html

Not posting because I in any way support the Labour Party or any party just wondered what others think?

From another article:

  1. Action to bring rapists to justice – rape convictions are at an all-time low with just 1.5% of people charged with rape are getting convicted, yet rape reports are up by 35%. We should fast track rape and serious sexual assault cases through the courts and CPS who have been left to wait years for their case to get to trial.
  1. New laws to stop harassment - as it stands creeps harassing women on the street are not breaking the law. That makes no sense and we need a new law now.
  1. Men who abduct, assault and murder women belong behind bars for life – let’s extend ‘Whole Life’ sentences for anyone found guilty of ‘abduction and sexual assault and murder of a stranger’.
  1. Proper support for victims of attacks – create a survivor support package, including a legal help for victims and better training for professionals to give people the help they need.
  1. Educate our young people – start a proper education campaign to make sure young boys and girls knows it is never acceptable to abuse or disrespect women- as well as the rules around sexual consent.
  1. Longer jail time for rapists and stalkers – some of the sentences handed out for these appalling crimes are a disgrace. Let’s make sure the time fits the crime.
  1. Treat domestic murders seriously – end the injustice that means someone can get a sentence of 10 years less for murdering their partner at home, than for murdering someone on the street.
  1. Make abuse of women count – the abuse of women that drives these crimes is not even counted by the police, that needs to change and misogyny should be recognized as the hateful crime it is.
  1. Fair access to Domestic Abuse services – no victim turned away from services for domestic abuse because of their background. Helping get support to all those who need it and making sure we can do more to catch perpetrators.
  1. It’s not women’s fault – stop the message that women are to blame because of what they wear, when they are out or for not ‘keeping themselves safe’. Time for a proper strategy to catch and punish offenders, challenge behaviour and improve the freedom of all women.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/10-point-plan-keep-women-23731333

Of course this all assumes the police catch the perpetrators and the CPS agrees for that there is enough evidence for it to go to court.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
safeornotsafe · 17/04/2021 04:10

I really want specialist services for refugees.

I really really wish there would also be the same for disabled and middle aged and older victims.

Disabled victims suffer abuse for longer than non disabled victims, and often more serious abuse. Disability is definitely main reason why I stayed.

It's big additional barriers to leaving and in accessing support. When I first asked for help I was sent back and forth between DA services and adult social care. Kept being told the other would help. I gave up on help and didn't try again for a few years..

Refugees, ethnic minorities, disabled, and older aren't turned away from mainstream services. Its just we have different life experience and needs from other groups. We have extra barriers to leaving and we need specialist services with the expertise and training.

There is no specialist service at all for disabled victims. Nothing for older victims either. It would help so much and make lots of difference in if we leave or not if we have specialised support where there's expertise and experience on our needs and barriers.

Every woman has different experiences of peri and menopause. Sometimes it's bad physically and mentally. Many younger domestic abuse workers don't have understanding of the menopause. It's not their fault as it's often still downplayed by lots of dcotors.

The fatigue, the brain fog, or the days of heavy periods that can make you dizzy or faint. Days where you're not well enough to get out of bed. The extra anxiety when already suffering from trauma and hypervigilance.

It's so much more difficult and distressing going through that in a refuge or when trying to get the right support.

Abusers are often carers for disabled victims. It's much harder to leave physically, mentally, and practically.

The temporary accommodation, refuge, and rehousing options suitable for a young or non disabled victim is not necessarily appropriate for middle aged, older, or disabled victim.

I've lost a lot of hope. I don't think Labour remembered disabled or older women when writing this bill. I don't many people do and lots don't care either. I wish things did change but I don't think they will.

toffeebutterpopcorn · 14/04/2021 15:13

@Whatsnewpussyhat

No use if labour can't even define what a woman is.

SEX based violence and abuse.

👆
Original poster
stumbledin · 13/04/2021 14:51

I dont think older women are ever excluded from DV services because of their age. The recent publicity regarding older women and DV is because most MSM ignore them.

But suspect many DV services aren't accessible so can see that women with disablities may not get the same level of service.

So hope, as the word used is "background", that the reference is to women who are refugees or asylum seekers.

And I can remember at one time these was publicity given to women who were in the country based on a religious marriage which the state did not recognise.

OP posts:
Original poster
stumbledin · 13/04/2021 14:46

Nicegerbil as I said in post immediately above yours, it was first trailed in the Daily Mirror who said they had been part of formulating it althought officially the work of 2 Labout mps named.

And the recent mentions in the media are because the Independent wrote it up on the basis of the interview with Starmer in Sunday Times.

OP posts:
SallyMcNally · 13/04/2021 06:17

@stumbledin

'Fair access to Domestic Abuse services – no victim turned away from services for domestic abuse because of their background'

hmmmm .... I didn't see that. Do they mean "background" which is what? Or is this some new way of saying gender identity? Or worse that they dont think refuges should have the right to provide single sex services as allowed under the EA?

Shock

I assume they mean people with uncertain immigration status. At present if you are in the UK with a visa that has "no recourse to public funds", which is everyone who doesn't have indefinite leave to remain, then you cannot access the majority of domestic violence services as they are council funded or rely on claiming housing benefits for refuge residents.

This obviously makes it very difficult for immigrant women to access support. For example if you come on a spousal visa you have to wait 5 years before you can apply for Indefinite leave to remain.

It's a massive issue. Southall Black Sisters are currently running both a lobbying campaign on it at the moment. You can also donate to their fund to provide refuge services to women in this situation.

safeornotsafe · 13/04/2021 05:27

There's no specialist services at all for disabled women or for middle aged and older. Quite a few of the murders over the last year were middle ages and older women. It's harder to leave when you're older or disabled. It's usually a longer relationship so harder change to leave and also it's a different stage of life and different needs.

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 13/04/2021 03:19

@stumbledin

'Fair access to Domestic Abuse services – no victim turned away from services for domestic abuse because of their background'

hmmmm .... I didn't see that. Do they mean "background" which is what? Or is this some new way of saying gender identity? Or worse that they dont think refuges should have the right to provide single sex services as allowed under the EA?

Shock

I'd like to think that they meant referral to specialist services for those who need support because they're from a religious community - similar to the recent guest post about forced marriage:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/4186416-Guest-Post-Mumsnet-was-the-first-safe-place-I-had-to-realise-my-own-agency-now-I-am-campaigning-to-end-forced-marriage

NiceGerbil · 13/04/2021 00:00

Found it on Twitter

mobile.twitter.com/nicktorfaen/status/1370847608953053185

Really hard to find on Google anywhere

I don't think it's being pushed or publicised to say the least.

Was it something just for the mirror maybe as they thought it would play well with their readers?

It's really ill thought out, no detail about what they mean, risk of causing a backlash. And most worrying of all, incorrect information to make the situation around the law sound worse than it is, to make it sound good, but what is the takeaway for women and men and boys and girls who read that?

The last part in unforgivable in my opinion.

Original poster
stumbledin · 12/04/2021 23:45

Sorry date should be 11 April 2021 - hope this is readable.

Labour promises bill to protect women and girls in wake of Sarah Everard killing
OP posts:
Original poster
stumbledin · 12/04/2021 23:28

Quote:

"The charter has been drawn up by Nick Thomas-Symonds, shadow Home Secretary, and Jess Phillips, shadow minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding."

From the Mirror article which I now see is from 15 March, and yet somehow the Independent links it to the Sarah Everard killing.

But the Independent says if is from the Sunday Times interview (14 April?) quote: "The pledge came in an interview with The Sunday Times"

OP posts:
NiceGerbil · 12/04/2021 22:05

I would like to see the source before commenting further tbh.

A lot of things about it would make me surprised if it had come from the central party iyswim

Onamissionn · 12/04/2021 22:03

Some of these points are good, it’s a start. I wish women’s issues were at the forefront of every party.

I think the no woman turned away regardless of background comment is one of the best ones there actually. Lots of women are turned away if they have issues with drugs, not eligible for benefits, teenage sons etc . Women’s aid did a campaign on it, it must be horrendous for those women.

SheldonesqueHasGotTheWeevils · 12/04/2021 21:59

Shame they weren’t so arsed about women in Scotland a week or two ago.

NiceGerbil · 12/04/2021 21:57

This list seems really cobbled together and ill thought out.

I couldn't find it on Google so where it came from and how official it is, is a mystery

NiceGerbil · 12/04/2021 21:56

'3. Men who abduct, assault and murder women belong behind bars for life – let’s extend ‘Whole Life’ sentences for anyone found guilty of ‘abduction and sexual assault and murder of a stranger’'

Agree 100%.

Women and girls are not the only groups who are not taken seriously with this, gay men as well for example (police failed to stop serial killer of gay men).

Awful story with similar dynamics seen as with women

www.bbc.com/news/uk-48887754

Trixie78 · 12/04/2021 21:51

They don't know what a woman is do it's all pointless drivel.

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 12/04/2021 10:30

3. Men who abduct, assault and murder women belong behind bars for life – let’s extend ‘Whole Life’ sentences for anyone found guilty of ‘abduction and sexual assault and murder of a stranger’

I’m a bit confused on what they are trying to do here. Are they saying that murder of a woman is worse than murder of a man or a child?

The second part of their point seems more general but still oddly specific on the crime - are they saying that abduction and murder of a stranger should attract a lesser sentence for not also sexually assaulting them? I think murder is pretty much the ultimate crime and should be treated as such.

This longer sentence idea is concerning while they still think twaw. It would just give people like Paris Green and Karen Jones more time being locked up in a confined space with women.

It just sounds like cheap virtue signalling to me.

UppityPuppity · 12/04/2021 09:57

Who wants to turn away women from refuges based on background? No one. Do we want to keep refuges single sex - yes. Trojan horse from Labour.

They don’t care about women in refuges.

They don’t care about women sharing prison cells with convicted rapists.

They don’t care about supporting Rosie Duffield.

They don’t care about women. Period.

CrazyNeighbour · 12/04/2021 09:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Kit19 · 12/04/2021 09:07

without a clear definition of what they mean by woman and girl then this is meaningless

if the definition of woman includes men who identify as one and girl includes boy who identifies as one then what's the point

KS is a lawyer, he knows good law hinges on proper definitions

so yes while all the above looks laudable, it falls apart the moment the Karen White's of this world would also be covered by it

Erkrie · 12/04/2021 09:03

Maybe they could start by identifying what a woman is.

Thecatonthemat · 12/04/2021 00:59

Are they trying to woo us back? Are there going to be enough police, lawyers counsellors to make all this happen? Where will the resources come from, have they costed it? Yes prison sentences should be longer, and given the current state of rape prosecutions, there should be proper investigations leading to more convictions. A statement protecting sex based provisions would be welcome also.

Datun · 12/04/2021 00:57

6. Longer jail time for rapists and stalkers – some of the sentences handed out for these appalling crimes are a disgrace. Let’s make sure the time fits the crime.

They could start with addressing the sentences of sex offenders which involves giving them access to vulnerable women who cant escape.

Honestly. I don't know if it's ignorance or arrogance, but as someone pointed out, it's a trick question, as the risk is the same for both.

GreyhoundG1rl · 12/04/2021 00:55

Or is this some new way of saying gender identity? Or worse that they dont think refuges should have the right to provide single sex services as allowed under the EA?
I imagine so. Since when was your "background" in the sense we usually understand it remotely relevant to being granted refuge from domestic violence?
Another attempt at whitewash. How depressingly familiar.

NiceGerbil · 12/04/2021 00:53

Who knows

That's my point. It's a nice sounding list but they talk about fixing stuff without saying what the problem is. They tell anyone reading that Street harassment is legal... Which is not true, it depends on what sort. So that's actually dangerous.

Very odd list.