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.

Labour have said categorically that men shouldn't be in womens prisons, they are not the ones that have collapsed the prison estate.

You seem to want rapists to be free to attack women in society generally.

Once again, it appears that the TWAW issue is used, not by people genuinely concerned about womens rights but using it to bash Labour with.

What do they mean by 'men'? Is it all men, or just those without a GRC, who they deem to be women?

Lisa Nandy was clear that men who say they're women should be in the women's estate and hasn't gone back on that pronouncement.

And frankly, if your comprehension skills are so bad that you see raising the limitations in the justice system (no judges / barristers and no prison space) as 'wanting rapists to walk free', then there is no hope for you. Can't even begin to think why you'd misrepresent like that. 🤔🤔

But they struggle to define what a woman is. If they say no men in women’s prisons but consider transwomen as women then by their definition there would be no men in women’s prisons even if transwomen were present.

Showing a your true colours there

I would've thought also putting them in prison was a good idea.

So where are the tories getting 150 extra judges for asylum court cases? If you back the Tories on this but Starmer isn't going to use court time like this, then thats where he gts his 80 courts from.

I guess that doesn't count in Toryworld.

Like i said, TWAW is just a vehicle to attack Labour with, no genuine concern for women e.g 600,000 waiting years for gynae treatment, all under your lot.

And now you're suggesting that I back the Tories' plans. Again, where have you read this? More misrepresentation. It appears to be a habit of yours which you need to look at stopping.

Who are 'your lot'? I don't have a 'lot'.

Just stop with the bare faced lies re other posters' political allegiance.

If you think that being concerned about women's sex-based rights and the safeguarding of children isn't a legitimate concern, then it says more about you (and your lot) than us, frankly.

I watched Lisa Nandy on TV saying they should be able to choose which prison the went in to.

Fucking choose. That was the day I was done with Labour.

It is a very important issue that when these women get to court that they are not forced to call the men who raped them ‘she’.

More rape courts doesn’t fix the many many issues that a currently going on with in them. Those need to be addressed first.

If Keir came out and said - ‘This how I’m going to change the rape courts system’ and listed what he was going to do then I’d probably sit up and take notice. AND he is in an excellent position to KNOW what needs fixing. Because currently he is just ( if he does) putting more broken rape courts on. That does not serve women - just clears back log

But as it stands this is just lip service.

Ummmm i said IF you back....... NOT that you do back them.... but i don't recall many on the TWAW debate every criticising the tories, its all ".....but Labour..."

The point here is that the Tories plan on recruiting an extra 150 judges for asylum cases but apparently Starmer isn't allowed to be able to do similar for rape cases.

Seems a bit odd and rather one sided.

@Hugosmaid So reducing the backlog and the 2/3 year waits women face for a rape trial wont help women.... ok.

i'd have thought its fundamental.

You literally said it's not a priority for you

You clearly referred to 'your lot' in relation to this government's shortcomings. I know what your accusation was, thanks all the same.

You just don't bother to see that we say how we don't back / support the Tories. And, frankly, at this distance from a GE, it's more appropriate to hold the (likely) incoming party's feet to the flames and drill down into their actual policies, than dwell on the outgoing lot.

And if we're on threads that are about Labour, why would we derail into a rant about a totally different Tory policy. Those posters who want that are a bit odd, if you ask me.

There are no judges or barristers. It's all words, given there's no practical way of achieving it.

The Tories want to use any capacity in the court system to deal with asylum claims..... Starmer wants to use it for rape victims.

Who is on the side of women?

Its very clear, but you as always, will never credit Labour for anything at all, thats v clear.

But there isn't any capacity! That is the point. This is not an achievable idea. It's more like someone's been tasked with writing "something about VAWG" and this is all they could find. It's the equivalent of scrabbling down the back of the sofa to put 50p in the meter

Ok so Sunak inc all his ministers are lying then... they cannot get another 150 judges for asylum cases either?

as they simply do not exist?

No, they don't exist. But this isn't a thread about the Tories' plans, is it?

All this Tory whataboutery is a nonsense and deflection, IMO.

Yes! Yes they are - that’s the point

the justice system is on its knees thanks to this fucking government, there are not a bunch of spare judges lying about.

and as Labour cannot define what a woman or a girl is without including men and boys oddly enough I don’t trust them to deal with VAWG. They’re quite happy for Labour members to harrass and abuse women who don’t agree TWAW so I guess some kind of abuse is ok by them. Can’t have women doing wrong think

I've been sucked into this bizarre, dystopian parallel universe where, in parts of my country, sometimes its actually better if a rapist doesn't get caught and locked up because the powers that be would lock him up with a prison full of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged, traumatised women in society. I think it's a marginally less evil thing for them to be raping with impunity in the streets, than in a women's prison.

So, so, so sickened by the fact that this isn't a thought experiment.

I don't think there are all these extra resources sitting about no. And I've never claimed otherwise or that the asylum processing plan was brilliant

Of course its relevant because Sunak says he has these 150 judges from the Tribunal courts, ready to go, training for them in progress, as flights due to take off back end of July.

So as Starmer is scrapping Rwanda, these judges are now available for his plans?

Do you actually believe there are 150 spare judges? Because I don't.

They are all lying.

Politicians lie on all sides.

The judges that don't exist are available, yes.

As I've never said they do, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with persistently raising non-existent judges.

There also aren't the barristers available either.

Neither plan is feasible.

But Sunaks isn't a plan, he says its happening now, all his ministers say so too, including the GC critical ones, if they are lying, why should we believe them on anything at all they say?

The Lord CJ hasn't said they are not available (at all) from lower tier courts, her criticism is that its up to the judiciary to deploy judges..... not the govt.

The lying point goes both ways, doesn't it? 🤔

There aren't enough judges as it stands. My work is civil, not criminal, and trials are vacated at short notice all the time due to lack of judicial availability. Everyone in the legal sector knows there aren't enough judges. We don't have the lack of barristers in our sector, as it's better paid, but the criminal side simply doesn't have enough for the Labour plans to be viable (I'll assume you read the article posted by a PP re specialist rape barristers).

Sounds like the Nightingale hospitals, lots of lovely new buildings which never get used.

You can’t suddenly create barristers out of thin air, and criminal barristers are shockingly badly paid.