Hospital told police patient not raped because attacker transgender

[Snoodsy]

A hospital told the police that a patient could not have been raped because her alleged attacker was trans, the House of Lords has heard.

The attack took place a year ago and the woman reported it but when officers contacted the hospital, which has not been named, they were told “that there was no male in the hospital, therefore the rape could not have happened”.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, who raised the issue during a debate on single-sex wards, continued: “They forgot that there was CCTV, nurses and observers.

“None the less, it has taken nearly a year for the hospital to agree that there was a male on the ward and, yes, this rape happened.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220317203204/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20220317203204/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/17/hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-alleged-attacker-transgender/

It is also highly implausible that it took police a year to examine CCTV

We reported an incident to the police in december

No witness statements taken to date…thats 3 months just to make a phone call

[quote Dendrite]@Nnique I'm hoping there are those who haven't thought it through properly, especially as the countering voices have been / are still being systematically squashed so not giving the true picture of the opposing arguments. Though many just don't give a damn as long as they're not inconvenienced.[/quote]
They will be a few I’m sure.

However at senior level(s) I am no longer willing to give any individual any benefit of doubt -

It is NOT cognitive dissonance; it is NOT confusion or misunderstanding. It is self-preservation.

They know, they see it loud and clear. They keep quiet and, further, comply, because they’re fearful for their jobs, their livelihoods and their social standing. It is moral cowardice.

Especially in a hospital setting.

Do No Harm.

P.S. I forgot to list universities in my earlier list of institutions who absolutely need to be purged of this rot.

Still, thanks for repeating the pattern of behaviour. I guess there are probably a lot of newcomers to the subject who missed Wi Spa, so they get to see this new round of feigned disbelief.

I believe that this is a woman who has committed a life and career to service which has involved working on years' worth of committees, inquiries and other formal situations where she has handled evidence.

And I very much believe that it is despicable to smear such a woman merely because it would so very inconvenient for a small number of males if this turns out to be true, and because 'that didn't happen'/'that person's unreliable because'/ that evidence doesn't match the standards I've just come up with is a very, very tediously endless parade on these boards from those who live in hope of silencing females and trampling their rights.

It never fails to revolt me.

@RufustheFloralmissingreindeer

None the less, it has taken nearly a year for the hospital to agree that there was a male on the ward

This is what she meant

There is a big difference between the situation you are describing and one which involved a highly specified place where a crime is alleged to take place and so reviewing CCTV would have literally taken 15 minutes.

But of course if you and the Baroness are right, then the CC of whatever police force this is should be resigning.

So why isn't she calling on them to do so? Why is she allowing a Chief Constable of a police force which didn't look at a very specific, identifiable and accessible CCTV for a year to remain in office without challenge?

@Tiphaine

this looks like a story whose full details have not been revealed

Really? You don't say! 

TeaKlaxon I'm afraid I don't find your insinuation that the details of this case should be made public immediately or it didn't happen to be at all convincing. I do find certain particulars about your use of language and the fact this appears to be your first set of posts under that name quite telling though.

There are absolutely details that should not be revealed.

She should not have revealed the victim's name or the alleged perpetrator's name. She should not be naming specific staff etc.

But the idea that she would not even name which hospital and which police force has failed in the way she claims is nonsensical. There is no logical reason not to do so.

I shall wait for some twit to announce that she's far right funded/ in league with anti abortionists/ is a Regan funded nun/ did hex Goody Starmer's cow when the moon was full/ has been seen consorting with the devil/ yada yada yada.

Look at the woman's cv ffs. Or take proper action and go and report this to the relevant authorities instead of randomly slandering someone who is still working flat out in public service for women at her age.

@TeaKlaxon why is it so important for you to attempt to cast doubt? Could it be that there is agenda there that is more important to you than the assault on a mere woman?

I wonder if stooping so low as some people results in a bad back and dodgy knees.

Tea Klaxon
It may be the hospital trust that is the subject of the investigation not just than individual staff if it was incorrect policies and training that led to the failure. Is it so hard to grasp that there may be a complex series of investigations ongoing.

Of all the tea-and-Bunbury types, the Universal Expert pisses me off the most. I suppose that to a bag of hammers, everything looks like a nail.

The Universal Expert now with bonus slander edition is extra specially unlovable.

Nice attempt at undermining a very serious issue @TeaKlaxon but I fail to see how knowing the name of the hospital would make any difference…?

Indeed, allmywhat. Let's not allow this thread to be derailed by unfounded speculation about the integrity of Emma Nicholson.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

Tea Klaxon It may be the hospital trust that is the subject of the investigation not just than individual staff if it was incorrect policies and training that led to the failure. Is it so hard to grasp that there may be a complex series of investigations ongoing.

Absolutely. There may be.

That's not a reason not to name the hospital and the police force in question.

Think about all the recent scandals that have emerged about hospitals and police forces. None of them required investigations to be completed before it was reported in the media which hospital or which police force was alleged to have done something bad.

Saying 'X Hospital is alleged to have done Y and an investigation is ongoing' does not prejudice the investigation.

There is a big difference between the situation you are describing and one which involved a highly specified place where a crime is alleged to take place and so reviewing CCTV would have literally taken 15 minutes

A….i didnt describe a situation

B…if you speak to police officers they will tell you that even with the best will in the world some things can be missed and /or take longer than they should

They have been reports of police keeping the phones of raped women for months and months…when we all know that it would be a matter of hours to down load the relevant information

It doesn’t have to be malicious….just slow

What benefit would be gained by naming the hospital at this stage? What benefit would be gained by naming the police force at this stage? What wrongdoing have they been shown to have done? Why should the Chief Constable be sacked. The staff haven't been shown to have done anything wrong or illegal yet. It looks like, as the Baroness was arguing, the policy which allowed this to happen which needs to change.

But its very cute that you think that the police move with mesmerising speed for everything

Mistakes happen

I was so angry when I read this. That poor victim. Staff at hospital should be sacked for obstructing the course of justice.

I don’t think you are reading all the posts tea

She may have mispoke but she clarified she meant ward

@ScrollingLeaves Thanks for the reference. It's hugely frustrating that pushback is left to individuals who risk their jobs in doing so. This should be a collective action, but great effort has gone into pronouncing this policy as a foregone conclusion with no wider stakeholder inclusion beyond those who already agree with it.

@DottyHarmer
This is where things get interesting/infuriating from a legal standpoint, as the law on single sex accommodation in hospitals was fudged from day 1. Labour introduced the bill but put wording in there that referred to gender, not sex. Of course at that point (pre 2010) GI theory wasn't mainstream & the two terms were used interchangeably to mean the same thing to most minds: biological sex. The problem was there was already trans & advocates such as Crispin Blunt /LGBT HoC group pushing for the vague terminology as they were playing a long game with the end result being what we now see.
Thus it suited those in the know to use gender, not sex, in the legislation, and then continue to lobby for change to what is meant by gender until the current endpoint was achieved.

Not content with this, trans extremists are now trying to redefine biological sex, making it something you can alter by identifying into it rather than it being an intrinsic bodily property.

We could have a proper definition in law of what it means by woman, man, male & female, but if the law sides with gender ideologues what then? All female protections would become null & void. Stonewall, universities etc in pushing to change language without the consensus of the whole of society are trying to mould the law to suit themselves, and to hell with everyone else left mangled by the consequences.

If nothing else it has shown those of us in supposedly democratic countries how fragile our actual rights are, that so many govt bodies, companies, charities, educational bodies etc can turn on a sixpence & suddenly declare the basic rights enjoyed by women & girls, (as well as men & boys), children in the context of safeguarding & gays & lesbians are now considered hateful & unprogressive.
No wonder people are furious.

Oh come off it @TeaKlaxon you know very well that BN was paraphrasing, not lying. Saying that there would have of course been male staff at the hospital is just a silly red herring.

The patient would have known, and would have reported to the police that she was assaulted by a patient, not a member of staff. The police would then have asked someone at the hospital about the patients on the ward, and it appears they were told that there were no male patients on the female ward. This was untrue, but what we don't know is whether that initial staff member knew that it was untrue. Some staff would however certainly have known it to be untrue and that fact should have been reported to the police immediately.

And if they didn't say that, I'd like to know why the Baroness claimed they did

She didn't give a verbatim quote, she clearly paraphrased that they told them there was no man who could have committed any rape

@Tiphaine

What benefit would be gained by naming the hospital at this stage? What benefit would be gained by naming the police force at this stage? What wrongdoing have they been shown to have done? Why should the Chief Constable be sacked. The staff haven't been shown to have done anything wrong or illegal yet. It looks like, as the Baroness was arguing, the policy which allowed this to happen which needs to change.

If the hospital are falsely claiming to police that there was no male in the hospital (as the Baroness claims) that would be massive wrongdoing.

If the hospital are falsely claiming to police that there was no one capable of committing the crime of rape on the ward, that would be massive wrongdoing.

If the police force took those statements at face value and didn't examine CCTV for a year, that would be massive wrongdoing.

Why is the Baroness entirely unconcerned about allowing the public to hold these public bodies to account?

X post with thedudesmummy