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.

What is the point of castigating women for not trusting or believing that Labour can deliver for women when you have no idea and don't care to try to address that lack of trust?

Labour can’t treat female members of their own party with respect, why would I believe that they would be effective in implementing policies aimed at women and girls?

Who are you going to vote for then, @fedupandstuck?

@MILTOBE who are you going to vote for?

There's a lovely independent candidate in my constituency who stands every election and has very compassionate policies. He's the most likely candidate atm.

Would you vote for him even if you knew he wasn't likely to win his seat?

Yes. I have never had a vote actually count given where I live, in a general election.

Reducing violence against women and girls by 50% - a laudable aim I am sure but are we not worth trying to reduce it by 100%?

The issue is not court space, but hopefully this pledge will also deal with the absolute shit show that is the criminal justice system under the Tories. It won't be cheap or easy and Labour must be held to it - I will expect more detail.

From the Criminal Bar Association:
"100 available Crown Court rooms from the existing court estate were shut for two days last week as we don’t have the judicial capacity to use them, let alone enough prosecutors and defenders, to try all the cases we need. Both for rape and other serious sexual offence trials, robbery, serious violence, drugs, fraud or human trafficking. The lot.

Addressing our justice professional capacity shortages is a necessary must pre requisite, before ‘adding’ another 80 physical court rooms, otherwise the idea that “specialist courts will be set up in unused rooms and spare capacity within every existing crown court” will remain a chimera.

Repurposing court rooms that are empty because we can’t man or woman them, means they will still lie idle as everything possible is being used and we have collectively no spare capacity.

20% fewer court rooms were actually used last week than are currently available as we can’t fill them with judges let alone prosecutors and defenders. "

Full statement here: x.com/TheCriminalBar/status/1799742127758610880?t=CMY_8cktj6NY2hCKu4ZG9A&s=09

Adult female what? Kangaroo?

Ha yes rape can only be committed by someone with a penis aka man.

Wheres the seriousness? Where are the court spaces considering how kier has wittered on about how crowded the courts are? Where is the money for 80 rape courts coming from? Where are the police to find the rapists?
Where is the female only rape counselling? Where are the staff to run the 80 courts?
When you break this shit down it's as believable as 6000 new teachers sorting the teaching crisis in 120k schools.

I consider VAWG to be a priority issue for women.

When KS was the DPP, he was the first and only DPP (at least in my lifetime) to do a thorough investigation into falling rape convictions and to widely consult on what the problems were from various experts and those with a lot of experience of the system - including with victims of rape who had been failed by the CPS.

He implemented a new approach to rape cases and for the first time rape convictions (at least those which got to the CPS) started going up. (Many of these reforms were reversed by his successor and we’ve seen what’s happened since…)

This was all while being forced by the MOJ to cut the CPS budget by Cameron’s government. KS truly prioritised VAWG. How do I know all this? I was one of the people consulted.

Yes I’d like him to stand up to the trans nonsense, but as a feminist that is not the only issue I care about re: women’s rights. And what’s the alternative? The Tories who claim to “know what a woman is” despite having had years to tackle this issue have done nothing but bluster. And their record on addressing VAWG is disgraceful - all hot air and no changes.

I know who I trust on these issues and think I have good reasons. What exactly is the basis of your distrust?

This is a woman friendly policy regardless of how anyone (victim or offender) "identifies".

Locking up rapists is a good thing for women. Getting rape cases heard is a good thing for women.
*
Depends which prison they get locked up in, doesn't it? If they can identify their way into a women's prison, it's very much NOT a good thing for the vulnerable women locked up with them.

I thought all the prisons are full. They have nowhere to put all the paedophiles and rapists. So I am not sure how extra courts will help.

@CassieMaddox I posted a link to this news on the thread about Rape Crisis Centres election demands (they were suggesting juryless courts to bring down the waiting times, amongst other things)
no one has responded

Lets imagine the Labour party had NO proposals to address VAWG
how would that be?

don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

Perhaps the sentences will be suspended or community based rather than prison.

@GC5 thank you for a considered response. I have not been impressed at all with Starmer's recent treatment of women in his own party, nor his overall performance as a party leader. I dislike the prioritisation of one group's demands over women's rights. My distrust is also based on a general distrust of the current crop of politicians who will change policies to gather votes rather than standing by principals. Furthermore I am not a natural Labour voter, tending to a more liberal centre ground, so it's not a question of why would I stop voting for Labour and more why would I start.

I don't believe that the lack of court space is a major cause of women pressing or abandoning criminal charges. There are many steps along the way where women drop out and the lack of clarity on what is a woman makes it worse.

Once a woman goes to the hospital and/or calls the police, the process begins. The hospital or police may contact a rape crisis centre to get her a support worker to guide her through the process. What if that support worker is a man who identifies as a woman? Same goes for the person who performs the intimate exam or photographs her injuries. How about the cop who takes her statement to whom she has to recount the horrific and intimate details of her attack? What if her attacker immediately after arrest, identifies as a woman? What if the judge insists that she call her attacker "she". As we know, some men will go to great lengths to get close to women in these situations, even pretending to be women. If women can't be guaranteed dignity at every step of the way, they will abandon the process.

Labour's proposal is window dressing. It literally costs them nothing to make this pledge because women will abandon the process long before it gets to court.

But getting to court is the majority of the issue

Im really pleased to see this commitment and hope they don’t let us down. Trust in all politicians is at rock bottom, it’s restoration is a top priority for me and whilst i vehemently disagree that TWAW, I trust Yvette Cooper any day over the any Tory.

70 new courts

staffed the same way as the Nightingale hospitals !

Most of the men who say they're women certainly don't have any bits of paper! They've just been told by Stonewall etc that if they think they're women then they have to be treated as such. But the Equality law is about discrimination and a trans woman's treatment is compared with how a man is treated. So if a man is not allowed into a single sex space then neither is a man who says he's a woman. Unless he has that paper until the law is clarified, which probably won't be happening now.

I've known quite a few women who haven't pursued rape charges. The issue of whether their rapist might claim to be a woman, or whether they might be supported/treated by/questioned by a man however he identifies hasn't entered into their decision. It has simply been a case of not wanting to relive the experience in court, knowing that a conviction is unlikely, and having to wait many months or even years for this to happen.

I really struggle with the demands of having to swear to tell the truth and then being forced to lie.

Thank you - exactly

I don't see how he can promise such a thing. IF it is actually possible why hasn't been been implemented already if there is a room, and a judge and enough court officials to do it. Oh right... money. Where is this mythical money coming from?

And that all needs to be paid for before making enough room in the prisons. Aren't certain prisoners ending their sentences early right now? Is Labour going to build more prisons, or continue to let other prisoners go early or idk... give rapists suspended sentences? I will bet my last penny which one it will be - because it is already happening. He needs to fix the sentencing first so they don't walk free. Ever.

Continue to let other prisoners go, it seems:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/09/labour-may-not-end-early-release-scheme-for-prisoners/

"Ms Mahmood said: I can’t rule anything in or out, because it would be completely irresponsible from opposition, without all of the information to hand, to make a decision about what we may or may not continue.
“What I can say is we will be transparent, we will release those figures, because we’ve been calling on the Government to release those figures."
She added: “I think actually the Government needs to level with the public.
“We all know that prisons are running at either 98 per cent capacity or 99 per cent.
“It is a dereliction of duty that the Government hasn’t actually released all of the figures about their early release scheme – they’ve actually been doing that in secret.
When asked again whether she would rule out continuing early release, Ms Mahmood said: “It would be irresponsible to make those decisions from opposition without all of the information to hand.
“An incoming Labour government, if we’re privileged enough to win, would have to lift that bonnet and see what horrors await.”"

They'll build more prisons by overriding planning law:

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/08/labour-vows-to-disregard-nimbys-build-more-prisons/

"Speaking exclusively to The Telegraph, Ms Mahmood said: “From day one, an incoming Labour government is going to designate all prison projects as being of national importance.”
She said the move would end a situation – which had lasted for decades – “where the planning process essentially gets in the way and prevents prison capacity from being delivered in this country”."

They won't be charging tax dodging corporations either. Just us PAYE folks:

www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/council-tax-hike-for-millions-under-plans-proposed-in-pamphlet-by-rachel-reeves/ar-BB1k2eZF

I think that this is a very positive policy announcement. How could anyone oppose the idea that more rapists are prosecuted? I am, however concerned about the implementation.

An additional 80 full-time courts would require an additional 160 full-time judges. Do we have an unopened box of criminal judges to meet this need? We would also need 3,200 additional full-time prosecution barristers. Finally, the CPS will need 6,400 more full-time solicitors.

I love the idea but I question the practicality.