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

[stumbledin]

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.

7. 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.

10. 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.

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

LOL. They can start with their members and supporters.

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

SEX based violence and abuse.

This using the same words to mean different things depending on context really pisses me off. Anyway.

Some of the points are good some need thought.

Street harassment, how are they defining that? Lots of types of street harassment are illegal. What needs to happen is be sure that women and girls know that and make sure it's followed up etc if they report. Their statement that it's not illegal full stop is pretty worrying. It makes them sound nice but it gives women and girls who read it the wrong idea which could have real life consequences.

The 'fast tracking' of certain cases is bound to lead to accusations of special treatment for women and could be counter productive. The problem that needs fixing is how the police CPS handle these cases.

I've read that juries are disinclined to find men guilty of rape because they don't want to ruin a man's life (yes that's another topic). As such all too often the bar is not any reasonable doubt, but any doubt at all no matter how preposterous. So if the automatic term is higher will that adversely affect verdicts? I don't know. Do they? Have they even thought about it

Very mixed feelings

The language used is also very. Unprofessional? Casual?

Altogether nice sounding words but the delivery and content gives me pause.

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

I'm also not sure what they're alluding to here. They seem to be making a broad statements that across the board services are turning women away. Are they? Is this a problem with all of them? Which backgrounds?

I'm sure they know what they mean and have stats and case studies so they need to share them.

'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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe they could start by identifying what a woman is.

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

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.

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.

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

'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

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

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

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.

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

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"

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

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.

@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?

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

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.