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/

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Why? It's more of an argument that it did happen. A woman was told that the person she thought was a man was a woman, and they convinced her that it must have been a woman. She is now sure that it was a man.

I agree. If we are to believe this woman who says she saw a man in hospital then was convinced it wasn't a man and left Twitter, but now says she thinks she was right first time, it is exactly the kind of situation the Baroness is referring to.

That's exactly how I see it. I can't see how this could possibly used to show it didn't happen when it's an example of when it did happen. It's another example of when a woman was told there were no men present when in fact there were.

@ScrollingLeaves

There were two separate HoL debates. Feb and last week.

These were outlined earlier in this thread I think ( or there was another on the same subject).

There are different cases being conflated here I think.

The one where the woman retracted that she had seen a male next to her in her hospital ward was used by one Baroness to argue proof of paranoia etc over trans women in hospitals.( In fact ppl on mumsnet say that since then that woman says she had not been mistaken she now realises - just gaslighted.)

The other, last week, reported by Baroness Nicholson, was of the woman who was raped in hospital but the hospital told the police (falsely) that no man had been in the ward.

This confusion might have been because I wasn't clear when I quoted Baroness Brinton in the February debate that she was referring to a completely separate incident.

I remembered that debate when KittenKong talked about a woman on twitter who seemed to have had a similar experience to the woman who Baroness Brinton mentioned, and I wondered if it was the same woman who had now decided she was right and she had been gaslighted by the hospital staff. KittenKong confirmed it was the same incident.

My asking for clarification may have confused some people who thought this was the same incident as the one mentioned by Baroness Nicholson in the March debate.

“DameHelena

Has this had any more large-scale news coverage, does anyone know? I haven't seen any. I wonder if it's because the police investigation is ongoing?
There are trans activists on SM saying that it's not in the media because it's not true/the Baroness has made it up/misled the Lords etc. I very much doubt that, but I do wish there was more public discussion about it.“

I think it was in The Times on the weekend.

@OldCrone
Thanks. Yes that was it. Then following you I reposted both Hansard links.

It is frustrating that the only report I’ve seen is a report on what the Baroness reported, rather than an independent report. Not that I doubt her, but others certainly will attempt to cast doubt on those grounds.

I am so pissed off the BBC has not covered this, this is a story of public interest.

1. A woman was raped on a hospital ward, where she has the right to be safe.
2. Hospital staff told her that she was not raped. #MeToo seems to have been forgotten.
3. Hospital staff obstructed a police enquiry.
4. Hospitals are lying about having single sex wards.
5. Police didn't bother to investigate a crime once they'd been told that the victim was imagining it. Plus ca change.

There are really serious matters of public interest here, this should be a lead story in the news. But the broadcaster to whom I am forced to pay a bloody licence fee, doesn't think it's worthy of mention.

I think the issue behind it all is “annexe B “ which effectively cancels Single Sex exceptions in the Equalities Act and may lead to the ‘lying’ which is there to protect the trans person at the expense of the sex in question. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to say more.

There is complete confusion and mess in what has been going on imo

@ScrollingLeaves

“DameHelena

Has this had any more large-scale news coverage, does anyone know? I haven't seen any. I wonder if it's because the police investigation is ongoing?
There are trans activists on SM saying that it's not in the media because it's not true/the Baroness has made it up/misled the Lords etc. I very much doubt that, but I do wish there was more public discussion about it.“

I think it was in The Times on the weekend.

I know, I mean since then.

There are really serious matters of public interest here, this should be a lead story in the news. But the broadcaster to whom I am forced to pay a bloody licence fee, doesn't think it's worthy of mention.

I think it's a case of in whose public interest it is to suppress this information: that is very heavily relevant and you make excellent points here. The BBC will tell you though if you complain that they identify as not being biased.

We have already had the tweets demonstrating the rage towards a woman who has the transphobia to be raped and then have the gall to complain and go telling people about what happened to her as a result of this policy.

think the issue behind it all is “annexe B “ which effectively cancels Single Sex exceptions in the Equalities Act and may lead to the ‘lying’ which is there to protect the trans person at the expense of the sex in question.

The privacy clause of the GRA is serious and imposes a burden on public service providers, even when the existence of a GRC is in doubt, and in extreme cases could theoretically be extended to gaslighting women about the sex of males who have sexually assaulted them. This issue needs to be resolved. Their "privacy" clashes with women's needs for single sex spaces. It's also been used before by trans activists to argue against the "sex by deception" offence if the offender didn't let the victim know their real sex.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trans-people-could-face-rape-charges-if-they-don-t-declare-sexual-history-warns-trans-activist-a7076546.html

Trans rights trample Women’s rights into the ground.

The privacy clause of the GRA is serious and imposes a burden on public service providers, even when the existence of a GRC is in doubt

But doesn't the privacy clause only operate when a person has acquired information that the person has a GRC?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.

(2)“Protected information” means information which relates to a person who has made an application under section 1(1) and which—

(a)concerns that application or any application by the person, or

(b)if the application under section 1(1) is granted, otherwise concerns the person’s gender before it becomes the acquired gender.

(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—

(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,

(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or

(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.

If they simply know the person's sex, and have not been informed that they have a GRC, this is not protected information. If the person does have a GRC it becomes protected information, which means that NHS staff in cases like this are obliged to lie to other patients if the transgender person with the GRC has not consented to having that information shared.

This is a problem and the law needs to be changed.

@OldCrone - I think you're right.

These are complex legal issues which have been misinterpreted by lobbyists who have their own bias and agenda. It's shocking how many institutions of EXPERTS have accepted their flawed interpretation of the law.

Stonewall et al are driven by a need to earn enough money to pay enormous salaries and feed bigger egos.

It's an appalling dereliction of professionalism from all manner of people to have a accepted the opinion of people who don't know their arse from their rainbow coloured elbow.

[quote DomesticatedZombie][/quote]
Thank you for posting this link.
This should be on Mainstream Media.
Such sense spoken.

@ScreamingBeans - the problem with your point no.4 is that hospitals can say they are not lying about single sex wards. They do indeed have single sex wards, just that “single sex” includes anyone who feels they fit that category. Thus if you see a 6’ hairy bloke in the next bed and complain, they can in all truthfulness tell you that your eyes are deceiving you - it is a woman. (And to keep your voice down for fear of offending Her and jeopardising the staff’s jobs.)

-If they simply know the person's sex, and have not been informed that they have a GRC, this is not protected information. If the person does have a GRC it becomes protected information, which means that NHS staff in cases like this are obliged to lie to other patients if the transgender person with the GRC has not consented to having that information shared.

This is a problem and the law needs to be changed.

Yes but I think there is something of a chilling effect because they "might" have a GRC which it's generally felt that you can't directly ask for, so making it difficult to enforce single sex spaces for anyone. Yet more evidence how the GRA being changed to self ID allowing more males to be legal women would affect women.

This crock of shit is exactly why there are such poor data on males in womens prison. Even the prison isnt allowed to ask if someone has a grc.

@BenCooperisaGod

This crock of shit is exactly why there are such poor data on males in womens prison. Even the prison isnt allowed to ask if someone has a grc.

I think that's Stonewall law isn't it? I don't think there's anything in the legislation that says they can't ask.

What is the point of a GRC if no one's allowed to see it or ask?

Awful law. Being repurposed, and creating 'rights' that should not be rights for any group in society. Repeal it.

Yes it absolutely 100% should be repealed.

Outdated, redundant, and ultimately hugely dangerous and damaging to women’s and children’s safety.

Never mind the overriding principle - as we’ve seen, legal fiction does not end well.

What is the point of a GRC if no one's allowed to see it or ask?

Really excellent question.

Surprised I haven't thought about that till now!

@ScreamingBeans

What is the point of a GRC if no one's allowed to see it or ask?

Really excellent question.

Surprised I haven't thought about that till now!

You can get your birth certificate changed.

So when an obvious man says he's a woman and shows you his birth certificate to prove it, there's nothing you can do.

That's why the exceptions, although done with good intentions, cant be carried out in practice. How do you do it? He can deny even having a GRC. You'll just end up in the Twilight Zone saying you're a man, you look exactly like a man! And him denying it.

The gates are wide open for any rapist to say he is trans and for the crime to be down graded to sexual assault.

New article from 4W on the subject, which talks with Gilly and another new woman.

UK: Women Recount Staff Denying there were Men in Single-Sex Hospital Spaces

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if abyone has already shared this, but I think this is the NHS document with Annex B in it:

Delivering Same-Sex Accommodation NHS September 2019

It's pretty plain to read. The main document says things like "Women-only day rooms should be provided in mental health inpatient units" but Annex B "Delivering same-sex accommodation for trans people and gender variant children" is very clear that gender (not sex) is the priority and says things like "Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use" and "It does not depend on their having a gender recognition certificate (GRC) or legal name change" and "It applies to toilet and bathing facilities (except, for instance, that preoperative trans people should not share open shower facilities)" "where admission/triage staff are unsure of a person’s gender, they should, where possible, ask discreetly where the person would be most comfortably accommodated. They should then comply with the patient’s preference immediately, or as soon as practicable. If patients are transferred to a ward, this should also be in accordance with their continuous gender presentation (unless the patient requests otherwise)."

I didn't find any explicit discussion of women's needs compared to men's, while the trans section seems very specific. So I can exactly see a hospital bureaucracy prioritisng what was written in clear detailed black and white and ignoring what wasn't, to the appalling detriment of women patients.

I did a couple of text searches over the document a whole. It's very instructive to see how rarely the words "safe" "safety" and "safeguarding" appear, and also exactly where they appear.