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/

As a pp posted

“The result of Annex B is that hospital trusts inform ward sisters and nurses that if there is a male, as a trans person, in a female ward, and a female patient or anyone complains, they must be told that it is not true - there is no male there,” she [EN] told the upper chamber"

In the last debate on single sex wards, the Minister asked for evidence. I do wonder if he is going to start to regret that now cases like this are surfacing.

"It'll never happen" has gone down in flames yet again.

It would not identify the woman to the general public, no. But it might to people who know her, for example. We have no idea of the circumstances, type of hospital or ward, why the woman was in hospital etc etc. There could be all kinds of reasons not to publicise this information. And there are current on-going investgations as well. Not sure why you are so stuck on this point.

@Nnique
I am wishing but accept that may be too optimistic of me.
Absolutely agree it is moral cowardice. Unforgivable lack of basic backbone.

I see too much of NHS (above basic clinical level) & govt/ company/ univ/charity culture is not to uphold basic good practice but instead to achieve targets, tick boxes, comply with your masters & above all, mitigate risk. Now that minimising risk seems to be on an individual level as well as corporate. So all the safeguarding & professional standards go out of the window when 'the masters' say it doesnt matter in this new, special case, and disagreement, discussion & own opinions are forbidden. It's a mass failure of these institutions to have common sense, basic decency & a backbone.

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.

Excellent point.

The values that were supposed to underpin all of this - inclusion, equality, accessibility - have just been spun to mean something else, and the core ideals abandoned.

Even 'lesbian' now means something else, with there being the right kind who deserve inclusion and the 'wrong kind'.

This needs rooting out. And those stupid enough to have enabled it are incapable of realising: once you make it that the fashionable group get the protections and the out of fashion groups can be treated in ways that have long since been thought unacceptable? All you have is the hope that your group doesn't go out of fashion tomorrow. Because it will.

There have been a number of doxxings of rape victims in recent years. Once the NHS Trust is revealed, all it takes is a bit of gossip about so and so being in hospital at a certain time, so and so being off work with distress after leaving hospital etc, for some nasty piece of work to put 2 and 2 together and get a name or names, especially if spiteful staff or their family members decide they want to go on the offensive and leak a few details.

That poor woman.

It is this kind of dreadful shit that will win the Tories the next election if Labour don't speak up loud and clear in support of single sex spaces.

Absolutely awful. That poor poor woman. We need our single sex spaces for safety. Why is the message not being heard?!

@theDudesmummy

It would not identify the woman to the general public, no. But it might to people who know her, for example. We have no idea of the circumstances, type of hospital or ward, why the woman was in hospital etc etc. There could be all kinds of reasons not to publicise this information. And there are current on-going investgations as well. Not sure why you are so stuck on this point.

Of course. No need to publicise what ward she was in or for what purpose. I never suggested that information should be available.

But naming the hospital and the police force would not identify the woman, even to those who know her. Tens of thousands of people pass through hospitals and police forces every year.

The reason I am stuck on this point is because the Baroness has form when it comes to being not entirely correct on the details when it comes to these issues.

And if people are going to use a situation to advocate for law reform, I think we all have an interest in knowing the full facts, and not just the facts as relayed by someone with an agenda and a record of getting things wrong.

@bellinisurge

That poor woman.

It is this kind of dreadful shit that will win the Tories the next election if Labour don't speak up loud and clear in support of single sex spaces.

Sadly this is what I can see happening my thoughts are now do I vote with them at the expense of my disabled child or against them

Second, if what she says is correct, we all have an interest in holding these public bodies to account for such obvious failures.

Which you will do once the investigation is complete, charges have been laid and it comes before a Court.

Furthermore those investigations may be covering a lot more than just charging the perpetrator of the crime, others may be face charges in relation to the covering up.

The victim in all this is guaranteed anonymity and therefore any information put in the public domain that could identify her to anyone will be withheld at this time.

Now perhaps you will stop your witch hunt.

Not sure why you are so stuck on this point.

The motivation here is to cast doubt on a story that is politically inconvenient. Pretending not to understand and repeating the same nonsensical rebuttal over and over again is a common tactic, because if they didn't repeat nonsense over and over again, they'd have no arguments at all.

But naming the hospital and the police force would not identify the woman, even to those who know her. Tens of thousands of people pass through hospitals and police forces every year.

How the fuck do you know that, how the fuck can you guarantee that? You can't and you have no idea about what or why those investigating it have requested that certain details are not shared publicly.

@ATeamAmy exactly, identifying the hospital, given that some other detail are known (approx time frame, supposed single-sex female ward) would be almost certain to lead to someone identifying the woman and the staff members involved. And the alleged rapist too of course.

What allmywhat said.

I wonder if it occurred in a mental hospital (sorry if outdated term) as that may account for the woman being disbelieved. I simply can’t believe that all staff would cover it up, but…… hearing about some workplaces (or wokeplaces) now, people will go along with any batshittery if their job and livelihood is at risk.

I wonder if it occurred in a mental hospital (sorry if outdated term) as that may account for the woman being disbelieved

I would say that's quite plausible.

@VestofAbsurdity

Second, if what she says is correct, we all have an interest in holding these public bodies to account for such obvious failures.

Which you will do once the investigation is complete, charges have been laid and it comes before a Court.

Furthermore those investigations may be covering a lot more than just charging the perpetrator of the crime, others may be face charges in relation to the covering up.

The victim in all this is guaranteed anonymity and therefore any information put in the public domain that could identify her to anyone will be withheld at this time.

Now perhaps you will stop your witch hunt.

This doesn't stack up.

Anonymity for victims doesn't mean no details of the crime can be revealed. In fact, details are very often reported before the conclusions of an investigation precisely because it can be useful in terms of identifying witnesses, other victims etc.

That is why it is not uncommon to hear that a woman was raped in X place at X time on X date. Could someone theoretically put those details together and work out that someone they know if often at X place, X time and so she may be the victim? Unlikely. But it's never a reason not to report the fact that a crime has taken place.

So why should it be a reason here?

Exactly that Bellinsurge

It doesn’t matter what happens to women Labour & the Lib Dems still mouth TWAW

The Tories are planning a 2 year fucking electoral fucking campaign (like we haven’t all suffered enough!!) and Labour are going to have 2 years of being asked “wgat is a woman?” Or “is it wrong to say only women have a cervix?” and they’ll look like utter bellends!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I wonder if it occurred in a mental hospital (sorry if outdated term) as that may account for the woman being disbelieved

I would say that's quite plausible.

This had occurred to me as well, given the absolute confidence in the line being taken by the hospital that nothing had happened and that there were no males on the ward. Much easier to gaslight a woman who is known to have mental health issues, unfortunately.

Ah, 'basic' seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in my last post. Must be all those flying Bunburys distracting me.

Quite possibly Dotty. Back in the day I worked in a psychiatric unit with a female patient who had been assaulted by a male. No one believed her because she was under section

@VestofAbsurdity

But naming the hospital and the police force would not identify the woman, even to those who know her. Tens of thousands of people pass through hospitals and police forces every year.

How the fuck do you know that, how the fuck can you guarantee that? You can't and you have no idea about what or why those investigating it have requested that certain details are not shared publicly.

I know that because of basic logic.

Hospitals see thousands or tens of thousands of people over the course of a year.

Saying a person is alleged to have been raped in X hospital at some undisclosed time over the past year could not possibly narrow it down to the point where a victim could be identified.

That is why when rape is reported in the media, they do not shy away from reporting the location, date, time etc. Because those details alone do not remove the anonymity of the victim, but there is a public interest in knowing that information.

There's also a public interest in knowing which hospital and which police force failed to the extent that the Baroness is claiming.

I think it's time for me to bake and ice a cake.

@TeaKlaxon
Read this post

“theDudesmummy

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.“

Then look into the issues behind all this which relate to interpretations of The Equalities Act and how it relates to Gender Reassignment rights and annexe B clashing with Sex Based rights/female only wards.
Really the two rights are cancelling each other out but hospitals are choosing gender over sex.

Read Sex Matters on this.

Read the Hansard transcripts.

Stop repeating that there were obviously men in the hospital.

Baroness Nicholson qualified that the police were initially told there were no men in the ward. This woman got raped by a male in the ward.