WRN report on sex attacks in hospitals

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.womensrights.network/hospital-report

'More than 6500 rapes and sexual assaults - some against children under 13 - have been committed in hospitals in England and Wales over nearly four years

Only 265 people (4.1 per cent) are known to have been charged for these offences.

The horrifying statistics - covering the lockdown period when hospitals were said to be more secure - reveal that at least 2088 rapes and 4451 sexual assaults (total: 6539) in hospitals were recorded by police forces in the UK since January 2019. One in 7 of the crimes - or 266 a year - occurred on hospital wards.

The figures have been uncovered by researchers at Women’s Rights Network who sent Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to 43 police forces in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
'

Front page Mail, mentioned on Telegraph front page.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11979529/Shocking-figures-reveal-6-500-sex-attacks-hospitals-just-three-years.html

It still has to be a crime in law - so hurty feelings won't be crimed. It will have to have some substance to it - like harassment, mal comms, public order etc etc

But everything gets recorded - which pushes the figures up

For example - anonymous report of a fight on a street. Police arrive and nothing going on. In the past that would be written off - now it gets crimed

An argument between friends via text messages on a drunken night out which gets reported to police - next day everyone is friends again. Used to get written off. Now gets crimed twice, harassment & mal comms

Its about making it more transparent, so every allegation of a crime gets recorded. But it just causes a lot more bureaucracy

But, we should be able disclose to the public how each crime has been concluded - not just detected or not detected

Same with nurses - Allit & Letby spring to mind

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11979789/DOMINIC-LAWSON-father-right-NHS-national-religion.html

People are very religious by nature it seems, like to worship institutions and people, making them sacred castes.

Nor, as the director of the non-partisan Social Market Foundation, James Kirkup, wrote last week, that 'a medical career is a salary escalator that will carry many doctors to an income in retirement so big the Treasury is rewriting the law to accommodate medical pension pots worth £1 million'.

But these facts don't touch the real issue, which is about emotions. As my father pointed out, those working in the NHS are venerated, politicians aren't; and so the former will always be favoured over the latter in any disput

We should not venerate humans, be they someone trendy because of clothes, music, politics, lifestyle, intelligence, sporty, acting. Sales or career choice... yet it keeps happening.

It's good to not worship yourself, we shouldn't be worshipping institutions, the earth (not sure what the Extinction rebellion Vegans will eat soon as rice is environmentally bad as are almonds and avacados) animals or individuals.

Well, we need to trust HCPs. We ought to be able to trust HCPs; it's not a question of 'venerating' them.

What is needed is a clear recognition of the risks of situations where you have vulnerable people, and plenty of checks, balances, and procedures in place to mitigate those risks.

One of the obvious, and necessary, safety nets being sex segregation within hospitals.

Sorry haven't had time to read this thread, but had seen the report.

Just wanted to make the point that the research for the report further illustrates the complete self absorbed nonsense of the report that said single sex wards weren't the best support for trans people - thread about it here https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4764040-genuinely-single-sex-wards-are-not-the-best-standard-of-care-for-all-and-in-particular-trans-and-non-binary-service-users-survey

Also, and this may just be me getting caught up in factionalism, was puzzled that today on their facebook page WPUK has posted about their comments on a Care Commission report and a C4 news report about violence in hospitals, execept they are all from 4 or 5 years ago. The cynic in me is thinking this a what is called the art of distraction in politics!

This makes my blood run cold.
aweegc

Anyway- horror aside, what shall/can we do? Write to MPs and ask for enquiry? I haven’t got time to read it immediately so if there’s any next steps in the report or if anyone has got ideas please do post them.

What?

Awful, unacceptable and a dreadful indictment of an NHS with Trusts that that openly work to place male sex offenders on wards with women.
Let's redirect some of the £££ millions spent on D & I into safety in hospitals. Stop the spending on pointless gesture politics / pronouns / rainbow lanyards / erasing accurate sex based language etc and redirect all that funding into effective measures to keep people safe in hospital.

First do no harm! Frankly they're hypocrites,.

I don’t care what sex the doctor is - I want the one who is most likely to cure me or my loved ones. I think it is right to have risk assessments in place and for that reason collect robust data on what’s going on in all institutions so that future risk assessments can be done relying on proper facts.

horror aside, what shall/can we do?

I think we should demand the NHS fulfils its responsibility to safeguard patients (adults as well as children), and provide a safe working environment for staff.

I'd also like to see police and the ONS recording the age and sex of both offenders and victims.

NHS staff shouldn't be the ones to decide if a rapist is reported to the police or prosecuted or not. IDK why the rate of prosecution is so low or why we should have to wait for the outcome of yet another bloody enquiry to get something done about this.

The determination of the MPTS NOT to strike off doctors guilty of inappropriate sexual behaviour certainly does T help improve public confidence.

"There is a public interest in facilitating the safe return to work of an otherwise competent doctor,' the tribunal concluded."

I think it's fair to say they are completely wide of the mark in their view of public interest. This man actually requested to be struck off,

"Instead he sent a statement in which he said: 'I will never practice medicine again, not for my genuine love of patients, but for my failures and mistakes in a younger period of my life.
'I recognise the harm this has caused and strongly advise the deciding body to strip me of my medical title.'
However, in ruling on a sanction, the panel decided not to strike off Dr White after hearing that his sexual misconduct was not of the most serious kind and imposed a 12 month suspension, instead.
'There is a public interest in facilitating the safe return to work of an otherwise competent doctor, so complete removal of Dr White's name from the medical register would not be proportionate,' it said.
'The Tribunal did not consider there is a significant risk of repetition of similar misconduct in view of Dr White's shame and concern for those impacted.'"

One of his victims voiced fears about what he may do in the presence of a sedated patient.

"One of the women - now a qualified doctor - told how his twisted behaviour, which took place over four years, had left her feeling 'violated' while another voiced fears about what he might do in the presence of a sedated patient."

The decision is really unfathomable, but I have seen other cases in the past where there has been what could be described as an excess of sympathy towards the perpetrator, resulting in a lenient decision.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11866071/Sex-pest-doctor-allowed-job-public-interest.html

There's a BMJ article about the case here but I can't access the full text.

www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p669

This. We will get nowhere until Annex B is binned and the pernicious influence of Stonewall et al is stripped out the of NHS.

I raised a concern about the trans inclusion policy at my local hospital (the usual, anyone who says they're a woman gets put in a women's bay, and staff will be disciplined if they don't lie to the other patients that there are only women present). I suggested that safeguarding is about assuming the worst and trying to prevent it, not taking everyone at their word and hoping for the best. The response was that the Trust were not aware of anyone identifying as a woman to be placed in a female bay for nefarious reasons, and they felt it was more important that 'they' (i.e., the trans identified males) didn't feel discriminated against. So there we are then, women's safety, privacy and dignity are less important than males not getting hurt feelings. Gender ideology is firmly imbedded in the NHS, and will have to be explicitly and deliberately removed if women are ever to be safe in hospital.

Yet is isn't removed and tbe NHS is so sexist it's female staff are on board with gaslighting, fanricating, failing to safeguard and inducing illness from strikes and Annexe B for £.

Steady on, Simon!