Women will have to prove they've been raped to get CTC - how low can this Government go?

[PoppyField]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/government-third-child-tax-credits-proposal-budget-rape

Apparently the new CTC regulations mean that you'll only be eligible for two children.... unless the third is a result of rape. Who is going to assess that? ATOS?

Seriously, I would like to wipe that smile of Iain Duncan Smith's face and put his vile fist pump where the sun don't shine...

Oh calm down

what dh the DWP actually say??

Are you taking that arguably forward looking exception out of context (alluding to those affected/raped wouldn't mention a reported crime), as to my mind that 'protection' is better in place so as not to add a complete financial insult, to a a criminal/emotional injury?

"The plans to restrict child tax credits to two children for new claimants from 2017 incorporate a number of exemptions, including multiple births, and set out that “the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as a result of rape or other exceptional circumstances”.

some people are just looking for reasons to be outraged I think!

I'm surprised that wording even crept into the press release. It's a hostage to journalistic outrage.

How many children each year are born as the result of rape and are the third child? I get that they were trying to make it clear in the press release that exceptional circumstances will be managed somehow but they probably chose a bad example. The multiple births one was better and they should have stopped at that.

Entirely on your side on this one, OP. We have a government who have already created a system where terminally ill people are being denied benefits because apparently their doctor's say-so (you know, the person with the actual medical training and access to their medical notes) isn't good enough.

We live in a society where most women don't report rape (for very good reasons - they'll be vilified, put through the mill on the witness stand, with very little likelihood of seeing their rapist convicted). Just imagine what's going to happen when one of those women (who was, perhaps, raped by her husband as part of ongoing domestic abuse - and trying to keep your partner pregnant and hence under your control is a well-documented strategy of domestic abusers) goes to ATOS. Are they going to say "we believe you"? Or are they going to say "Where's the crime report, the CPS decision to prosecute, the successful guilty verdict?"

And it's going to function like the exemptions for rape for women seeking abortions do in other countries - become yet another stick to beat women with. "Sufficiently virtuous rape victim? Beaten half to death down a dark alley by a complete stranger prior to which you can prove you were a virgin? Okay, we'll grudgingly give you the money?" "Can't prove it? Ha, off to the poorhouse with you, along with the sluts whose contraception failed and the nags whose husbands buggered off and left them with three children and no means of support."

(BTW, remind me again how many children IDS has? Oh yes, that's right, four!)

So how do you propose they deal with this? Just hand out tax credits to all pregnancies? Or?

Yes, that is what I propose Anyone - I don't know if they do hand out tax credits to pregnancies as such, but well done, you've got the gist of it ... I am with Alison Thewlis on this:

“We think the policy on limiting tax credits is appalling anyway, and tantamount to social engineering..."

And yes, the 'rape clause' does not account for the majority of my anger against this Government, but it kinda puts the tin lid on it. The poor, the vulnerable and disabled are the ones paying disproportionately to get the country out of a hole and Osbourne is using austerity as cover for rolling back the frontiers of state in a way Thatcher and her monetarist ideologues could only dream of. That is my reason to be outraged. Is that not enough?

Well no not really

Any incompetent government can run a budget deficit economy from 2001 and spend money we have not got to bribe the voters, to fall down at the first major recession - as it did after 2008, resulting in passing a £153 billion budget deficit/overspend to the Conservative Coalition in May 2010 - with no DETAILED plans before 2010 or after, to address THEIR largest UK government deficit in peace-time history.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Britain-outstrips-Europe-on-welfare-spending.html

Even Labour realised that they created a monster, but after Darling The Brave trying to warn voters pre 2010 General Election, they'd only then TALK tough in the middle of General Election cycles while opposing every cut to THEIR deficit;

March 2010; ”Alistair Darling:we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

October 2013; “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

“Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support”

August 2013; “Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/21/labour-to-cut-benefits-bill-2015

”Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday”

”Liam Byrne, a Labour frontbencher, said the coalition's welfare reforms were failing to cut costs enough, and called for cross-party talks to "save" some of the government's key schemes.”

Labour produced an economy of a fat, expensive, Public Sector full on 'non jobs' and quangocrats, parking millions on welfare dependency, with no checks for years.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

It had to change, Labour were just too cowardly to fix yet another mess of theirs thanks to 13-years with a huge electoral majority to do EXACTLY what they wanted.

The budget was anti women...women and children will suffer the most and this is just part of it.

I'm with you in so many ways and can't imagine how this will be dealt with in a sensitive way.

BUT

... this week I met a single mum of 4 children, another one on the way, who told me she gets £44K a year in benefits. All the children have the same father, who doesn't live with her or pay child support.

I know another single parent with 6 children who receives more than 44K in benefits.

In both cases ALL the children were conceived, born and raised without the mothers ever having worked.

Both families have at least one child with sn who they are really struggling with, but have gone on to conceive two or more children after their older child has received a diagnosis.

I know that the benefits cap will cause these families loads and loads of problems, and I feel very sorry for them. But they've ended up in this situation because the benefit system has made it not only financially viable but advisable to continue to grow their families in order to secure a regular high income to the household. I understand these families won't be affected by the limit on tax credits to two children, but I'd hope that limiting tax credits to two kids, and the benefits cap will make some women stop and think about casually having really big families when they don't have the social, emotional or financial resources to care for them properly.

It's not even about the money for me. Really big single parent families are few and far between. But the children who live in the two families I've mentioned are so massively disadvantaged by their mothers' life choices.

Would add, I'm a life long labour voter, I believe in welfare. However, we've created a system - labour government too - of low wages, high childcare costs, insecure employment and expensive housing. Working class women who are poorly educated are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to income and access to secure housing. If you are a working class woman and you leave school with a handful of poor GCSE's, the most reliable way to secure a home and a decent income is to have as many children as possible without the involvement of a man.

Personally I'd rather we provide working class women with an alternative life path by focusing on improving their access to further and higher education, increasing the supply of affordable housing, and supporting industry to provide more living wage, secure jobs, but in the absence of these things (and the Cons aren't interested in the carrot approach - just the stick) then something has to be done to stop 'have loads of children and live on tax credits' being a career choice for some girls.

Would add, that 44K in benefits is equivalent to a gross salary of over 65K a year.

Nicole Rarely are posts on here so reasoned and balanced. I can relate to every word you've written - save for the bit aout being a life long labour supporter. Labour have never (in my lifetime) offered a credible route to betterment for us working classes.

Very well said.

I thought the benefit cap was far lower than 44k, even if you have a dozen children, is this not so?
I can see how you could get this figure by adding hb but where do people propose these people live?

Yes, the benefit cap is lower than £44k but it only applies if you are getting housing benefit or universal credit. Some people are also exempt from the cap.

Good post Poppyfield, totally agree.

Prove it how?

Reproductive coercion is a huge problem, too. Why is that not covered?

How about contraceptive failures?

If those families have a disabled child then they are exempt from the cap.

Cleo

How about contraceptive failures?

How would you prove it? If you make an exemption like that everyone who has a third child will say it was due to contraceptive failure which would make the limit meaningless. If the government is going to limit CTC to the first two children it has to make sure that any exemptions allowed don't simply drive a coach and horses through the policy.

How would you prove it?

Same question applies to rape.

This is going to be a big fat mess. Will there be panels set up to listen to women's description of their rapes? You certainly can't reasonably take the view that no conviction = no rape.

Same question applies to rape

From a law enforcement point of view, if this encourages women to report rape when it happens that is a good thing. It should make it easier to prove that the victim has been raped, get evidence against her attacker and get the scum who committed the crime off the streets.

But on the policy specifically we don't yet know how this is going to work. All that the government has said is that HMRC will "develop protections" for women who have a third child as a result of rape or other exceptional circumstances. For all we know at this stage contraceptive failures and might be regarded as "exceptional circumstances". The wording of the proposal is clear that rape is not the only justification for paying CTC for a third child.

Reporting rape does not mean a conviction is gained. (I don't have to expand, do I?) So, a victim of rape could have a double whammy of seeing their rapist not convicted and have to eke out their money. At least the CMS will mean that they get child maintenance. Oh, wait...

Yet more legislation made by people who never have to deal with the consequences.

I'm sorry but this is horrendous. Not many women report rape as it is so for someone to ask them to prove it so they can get TC is horrendous. I know this isn't the only "exceptional circumstances" but to use it as an example is unnecessary. The government have no idea what emotional stress a woman goes through over being raped, Even to report it is very very hard as alot of women are ashamed, never mind to find out you are pregnant with your rapist baby. Then to be told to prove you was raped so you can afford to feed and dress this little innocent baby. It sickens me!!!

The amount of women that choose to keep a third pregnancy after rape much be tiny. It is not a big enough problem that the whole policy should be based on it. The problem of people who are unemployed or underemployed having multiple children that they can't afford is a big problem, and it has to be death with somehow. We cannot and should not continue to hand out free money to people who knowingly make bad choices.

The two child policy is very popular, and with very good reason.