80 new rape courts

[CassieMaddox]

Labour pledging this as part of their manifesto commitment to reduce VAWG.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/08/labour-pledges-80-new-courts-in-bid-to-tackle-backlog-crisis

So pleased to see an actual tangible action targeted at something that will help women. I'm looking forward to seeing what else is in their manifesto now.

Can judges and barristers switch easily between specialisms, such as immigration law and criminal law? Just wondering how feasible this “reassign the judges identified for Rwanda hearings” is. If the judges actually exist that is, I presume they are like the thousands of new nurses and dozens of new hospitals.

But what is your answer? Are you happy to leave this issue completely unaddressed because you don't believe there is any answer? Even when that is manifestly untrue?

I've given several reasons why the issues pointed out are capable of being addressed, even if it will take some time and, certainly, money. You haven't given any response to that, you just repeat the same hopelessness.

Or are you just planning on disappearing off to a desert island?

@Scruffily I'd like to see this policy fully costed and with significantly more detail as per the other posters, before I would think it worth voting for. Some suggestions made by others for longer term solutions I would agree with too.

Why are you being so hyperbolic, with these quips about disappearing to a desert island or suggesting that I'd be happy (happy?? Ffs) for politicians to do nothing?

The issue is not saying that barristers can't work for both sides. The issue is saying that only barristers can do court work. Obviously, that is not true.

I, too, have dealt with the issue of finding judges and lawyers repeatedly in this thread. Sure, it needs a plan initially to incentivise some lawyers to switch - and I have certainly come across lawyers who hate the area of work they are in who would be happy to switch if they could afford to do so - and it needs a further plan to incentivise new lawyers to go into legal aid work, particularly criminal legal aid. That doesn't necessarily have to mean megabucks, because strangely lawyers who are attracted to legal aid work aren't after megabucks, but it does have to be an increase on the current pathetic pay rates.

As I've said, Starmer would be irresponsible to spell out exactly how this will be funded till he and Reeves can get their hands on the books. When have you ever seen a manifesto that contains that level of detail? If you want everything spelt out in that way, how do you ever decide how to vote given that it never happens?

Also, not "hopelessness"! FFS. Just not believing that this Labour leader and this potential Labour government can and will be able to make meaningful change.

(I know you disagree with that, and you think that my reasons are invalid! No need to tell me again.)

I dealt with the issue of prison space upthread. In my view and not just mine), they can take a big step towards it by getting rid of stupid short term custodial sentences.

OK, you accept it could be done with a costed plan. One party has expressed the firm intention to do it. Like every party other than the Conservatives, it cannot provide a fully costed plan for anything until it can actually see the books. Does that mean we automatically disbelieve everything that any opposition party puts forward? Seems a somewhat strange view of democracy.

Most judges basically have to go where there are assigned, and there are certainly judges in, for instance, the criminal and family courts with little or no track record in those areas who basically are assumed to have the skills, after training, to get up to speed pretty quickly. Barristers and solicitors have more of a choice in terms of the area of law covered by the chambers or firm they go into, but again can be incentivised to move over.

You're right that the Rwanda court judges are probably a figment of Sunak's imagination, but I assume that, if he had ever managed to get anyone assigned to a flight, the Ministry of Justice would have bust a gut to ensure that all legal challenges could be fast-tracked somehow. If I were the incoming Minister (which is never going to happen) I think one of my first priorities would be to get my hands on those files and have fun spilling the beans about what Sunak, Braverman, Jenrick et al were planning.

I don't think I'm being hyperbolic, but my questions arise of puzzlement, really, at the sheer level of negativity shown on this thread. It is however progress that you also accept that the plan is actually possible, contrary to a number of people's vehement assertions, it just needs more detail and costings.

So, again, what if anything is your proposal as you believe it's not hopeless?

The level of negativity on this thread for a policy that will benefit women exists because, at its heart, FWR is not about an honest interest in the overall wellbeing of women so much as it is about an obsessive preoccupation with, and hostility towards trans people.

The Courts are a FAB idea
but there are no staff for them
(see also Nightingale hospitals and nurseries and GPs)
so its a meaningless policy

Me, upthread: 'For the proposal to have any value would require a lot of other societal changes, involving the police, the CPS, what happens in court, the prison system, etc. as well as dealing with pornography & a culture of misogyny. Some idea of preventing rape by improving male attitudes & behaviour, respecting women & providing safeguarding, privacy & dignity when needed would be nice, too. In fact, I'd rather no woman or girl went through the trauma of a sexual assault in the first place. That's feminism for you.'

Scruffily: 'There is nothing to suggest that Labour intends to concentrate on [hypothetical new courts] at the expense of all the other initiatives you suggest.'

😂Is that the best you can do? A hazy suggestion made out of thin air & blathering?

Anybody got any evidence of Labour intending to deal with all the things I mentioned? Every single one of them, according to Scruffily. (Unless it's too expensive once they see the books, of course.)

This actually raises an interesting point. Since the rape courts proposal is nothing whatsoever to do with the gender debate, why did @CassieMaddox put the thread here & not on the general feminism board where it surely belongs?

This board seems to get more traffic? Good to bring women-positive policies to the attention of as many people supposedly interested in women's rights and wellbeing I guess.

Not good enough. Try again.

😂 Who do you think you are, some jumped-up chalk monitor?!

You are mistaken.

I said it took Blair 8 years before the public noticed improvements in the NHS, nothing to do with changes that Starmer wants to introduce.

& who has said "if you don't back Starmer, you support rape" thats absurd.

We have different priorities & concerns, mine is DV and the Tories record on protecting women from this has been dire.

Fuck! they even taxed panic rooms! thats who we are dealing with.

I asked a serious question & you gave an inadequate answer to it. Not my fault you got it wrong.

It's all ok. Nothing to worry about. Labour have repeatedly assured us that all their policies are fully costed and funded with detailed implementation plans. I look forward to the answers to our questions in the manifesto.

Alexandra2001: & who has said "if you don't back Starmer, you support rape" thats absurd.

It would be nice if it were absurd.

I said it CAN be used that way. Having seen a lot of political & misogynist fights over the years, I've seen this sort of remark before.

And upthread surprise was expressed that any feminist could argue against these proposals.

It's a well-known technique.

You've given this no thought.
You might do everything possible to get him in court and in prison.

I'm pretty sure you can think of many reasons why you actually might not do this in the end.

You are almost denying other women agency in their own lives and deciding what's best for them all.

😂 yes boss.

Out of interest, can I ask how often you post on the Feminism: Chat board compared to how often you post on the Feminism: Sex and Gender board?

A rough ratio will do, thanks.

Now from I can see, in the light of your lack of engagement on that board you would never have read/contributed to a discussion on an important policy that is aimed at increasing rape convictions.

Why don't you want to read about such proposals? Why don't you think such women-friendly proposals should be put in front of as broad an audience of feminists as possible?

This is a really bad ‘plan’

I work in the justice system and the issue isn’t a lack of venues. The issue is a lack of police, CPS, judges, and prosecution/defence barristers.

Rape trials are very very very hard to get going and draw to a conclusion. The vast majority of the time the offence takes place between 2 parties that know each other with a messy history, and can be reported months or even years later. There’s no smoking gun with rape (unless a very unusual case) - no CCTV, little in the way of hard evidence, few if any witnesses. Forensic evidence is non existent unless it’s reported very quickly. It’s very tough to call and ultimately if it reaches court it’s the jury who decide guilt or innocence. Smartphones mean there is an absolute mountain of evidence to sift through and this can take many hours - just think how many messages fly back and forth between people now.

Add to that the fact the number of rape complaints has doubled in 6 years and you can see why the system is struggling, and it’s not because of misogyny.

I think blaming the justice system is so very unfair. The people who work in it have no way of defending themselves and it’s seen as toxic to ‘blame the public’ rather than self flagellate and say we’ll do better etc. So they’re never publicly defended and the real reason for the low conviction rate will never be properly discussed.

Well, you seem to be having a conversation with yourself, so I'll leave you to it.