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/

If I remember rightly, the law on rape does not mention males. It does define rape as penetration by a penis without consent of various body orifices. So this tw could have been investigated for rape.

Hospital trusts have vicarious liability for their staff while working so it would be the trust that was sued, not the individuals. But it does show the impossible position staff are in - being told garbage like men are women & having to act on that, which contravenes the Nursing & Midwifery Council code of behaviour of respect for all patients regardless, telling the truth etc. etc.

We've been waiting for a test case against the NHS (no pleasure writing those words). This could be it.

My blood boils too. Nobody cared about the woman who was raped. The “health service” chose to endorse the delusions of the rapist.

That is evil.

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

This makes me upset, angry and fuming all at the same time. This poor, poor woman.

If I remember rightly, the law on rape does not mention males. It does define rape as penetration by a penis without consent of various body orifices. So this tw could have been investigated for rape.

Correct. (And sexual assault by penetration has the same sentencing guidelines anyway.)

But I struggle to believe that the fine print of the phrasing of the law on "rape" had anything to do with this. The assault happened, regardless.

I can only assume the hospital was working from the old-school GRA-based "you mustn't out someone or acknowledge them" principle which meant that any report of an assault involving a penis must be denied, as acknowledging that it could have happened would "out" the man as being male. They had to deny the penis (like AG in the Forstater trial).

The modern transgender rules would say "the person you're accusing is actually a woman" but still proceed with the assault-by-penis claim. Thus centring the attacker rather than the victim, but at least they wouldn't be stuck in a weird denial trap.

(Of course there is no consistent rule book - it shifts to whatever's advantageous for the Woke/trans/abusive person in any given circumstance.)

If they want to be stupid then they can at least be stupid in a biological way and admit the person who has a penis actually has a penis, iyswim.

I agree.

The law needs to be changed that rape means penetration from a penis regardless of what gender the attacker identifies as.

It should also be penetration by other objects too as there have been cases where the attackers (males & females) have used items but it’s not classed as rape.

I do like the phrase 'deny the penis'. It has many possibilities.

I think you're right, NecessaryScene, that they were playing by the Old Rule Book, but maybe this happened before a later edition came out. They do like to chop & change with alarming frequency.

Just so awful to have it denied by the authorities that the crime even took place. I assume this means no evidence could have been taken, no DNA swabs, nothing. That poor woman.

If I remember rightly, the law on rape does not mention males. It does define rape as penetration by a penis without consent of various body orifices. So this tw could have been investigated for rape.

Sorry X post.
Then there is no way this person should not have been investigated and found guilty of rape sooner.

I couldn't believe what I was reading in the papers this morning.

Raped, and then gaslit for a year, by the people who were supposed to care for her.

Cannot say there is a man when there is a man

It’s not even that, is it? A woman with a penis can still use it to rape another woman. There is no need to worry about getting the language wrong or upsetting the trans woman by stating she is actually a man and opening yourself up to lawsuits or job loss. A trans woman raped a woman. It makes perfect sense.

Imagine hating women so much that you're willing to lie to police and retraumatise a rape victim whilst trying to prevent her seeking justice.

This. Fuck these awful people.

Sorry to keep harping on; but it has occurred to me that if we now have 100million gender identities (exaggeration my me, I know) then perhaps we need a new definition of rape. I mean how long before a person says they are some other gender and couldn't possibly have done it?

Anyone nurse or hospital manager involved in this should be charged with perverting the course of justice.

@couchparsnip you are misstating the law. Are you intending to troll?

The law says rape is nonconsensual penetration by a penis.
Nonconsensual penetration by another object or organ is the crime of sexual assault by penetration.
There is a campaign to redefine rape as nonconsensual penetration by any organ or object. This is the definition in some other countries. I don't agree at the moment but its a reasonable argument.

Women may on rare occasions commit sexual assault by penetration, or be so central to the commission of a rape that they are convicted as part of a joint enterprise.

The woman raped in hospital was raped by a male. Their gender is only of interest in that it apparently allowed the rapist to be on a ward with her.

NHS wards are allowed to have multiple bays, which may be of different sexes. Nurses are usually quick to spot someone moving bays but not always. We don't know the circumstances of this crime.

None of this means anyone should have to tell lies about who is male or female.

None of this means women have penises.

The law needs to be changed that rape means penetration from a penis regardless of what gender the attacker identifies as.

It should also be penetration by other objects too as there have been cases where the attackers (males & females) have used items but it’s not classed as rape.

I've seen no evidence there's any problem with the law. There's nothing stopping "women" who are actually men being charged with rape - and the stats show there ARE a lot of "women" being charged with rape.

And "rape" and "sexual assault by penetration" are equalised in sentencing guidelines. The two things are treated the same in the end in individual cases. They simply haven't gone through and changed the historical coding system for reporting.

And if they had gone through and done so, it would be another way of hiding male violence, would it not? At least you know that "rape" is unambiguously male - hence you can deduce there's something fishy about the large number of "women" being charged with rape.

(Although you do have to be careful - some stats do combine "rape" and "sexual assault by penetration" into a single figure, some do not).

As a breastfeeding peer supporter, you'll never get me saying chestfeeding to any of my mums.

@Couchbettato is your trust using that terminology? It's just that mine is and I'm worried that this could be a precursor to mixed sex wards.

What is the definition of mixed wards BTW? Are separate bays OK?

This is horrific. So if it wasn’t for the CCTV, would the perpetrator have been caught….? This shit has to STOP!

This makes me so fucking angry

Women’s rights have regressed 150 years. We should be taking to the streets to protest the institutional erosion of women rights. I’m all for Trans rights, but not at the cost of basic women’s rights

@Oblomov22

The policy is being reviewed by the NHS but as this newspaper revealed, one of those carrying out that review is a “trans advocate”.

Dr Michael Brady, the national adviser for LGBT health at NHS England, has written to campaign groups telling them that there is “no plan to reduce existing rights of trans people”. Controversial charities Stonewall and Mermaids had contributed “very helpfully” to the process, Dr Brady told the Trans NHS Staff Network in emails seen by The Telegraph. This man may as well be raping women himself. With Nancy Kelley as his accomplice.

I'm so so angry about this.

@Georgeskitchen

Whistle blowers have come forward sadly, and confirmed that staff have been ordered to deny that a male is on a female ward , if a complaint is made

Truly appalling behaviour if this is true. The hospital may not have raped this poor woman but are highly culpable. Their policy enabled this to happen in the first place, then staff were instructed to lie, to protect the rapist? (And their reputation, which is now utterly in tatters). The only good thing to have come out of this is to demonstrate that the worst case scenario can and will happen if you put male bodied people in a hospital ward with vulnerable women. I wish I was surprised at any of this.

I wish people would read the full thread.

@lovelyweathertoday I'm "on about" what others are saying, and what some are calling for:

The law on rape does not specify that a male has to be the perpetrator. So there is no need on this occasion to risk getting sidetracked by debates or sex or gender of the attacker. The law does require penetration of the body with a penis. So no obvious reason in law why a rape prosecution couldn't be sought if penetration has occurred.

There needs to be an independent investigation to find out which people or organisation came up with this policy to lie to the fucking Police!!!!

Is this anything to do with Stonewall? If this is found to be true they must be sued then all public money taken away from them.

Of course the law allowed this male person to be prosecuted. But these language games are designed to confuse people. They're doing their job. Mostly, if people hear 'woman' they think of a woman. Mostly people treat sex and gender as the same thing. That may not be theoretically correct but it's practical reality. What would be the point of transitioning otherwise? Why would there be reports and campaigns and screams that we must NEVER NEVER NEVER say that transwomen are male? Why would anyone care?

Apologies just seen the posts which say Stonewall are directly involved.

Can we have a mass protest from MN? Complaints to Stonewall and then to the Charity commission?