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.

Perfectly summed up.

"Less of a priority" =/= "not a priority"

Also there is an important word in that sentence - "theoretical". I don't think Labour are going to put trans rapists in womens prisons. That's a Tory thing.

You disagree, fine. But please don't misquote me to make it look like I think something I don't.

Taking this on face value.

I believe that Labour believe that they could have this policy.

I don't believe they have actually thought it through.

I don't believe that there are enough judges or court space to hold the trials.

I don't believe that the police can be trusted to obtain, keep and hand over any viable evidence that could help to bring justice to women.

I don't believe that the rape cases would end up with more men being found guilty.

I don't believe that if they were, that the men could be found places in prisons.

I don't believe that the Labour Party would keep men who say they are women out of female jails.

I would absolutely love to believe that any of this is possible, no matter who was the party coming up with it. It seems like it could be a way of trying to win back women to vote Labour. Which means that they think they might lose. So that's interesting.

Interesting from the senior judge in charge of rape prosecutions in March:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68483956

"The system has recovered its capacity. We are now in a position to make some choices, we are not in a hand-to-mouth crisis now."

If the government is serious about prioritising rape cases then it needs to urgently invest in the dedicated workforce who are specially trained in this work

This looks to me like the capacity is there but needs some priority and focus e.g. a manifesto commitment

OP do you work in the court system at all?

Also there is an important word in that sentence - "theoretical"

Yes. You're trying to diminish this further. It's not airy fairy theory. It's real. It's happening. Labour don't plan to stop it. HTH

None of the parties have got a track record that suggests they will prioritise women, but yes as it looks like Labour will win it's their policies that need most scrutiny.

Labour will bring in self-id because it's cheap and they see it as a sop to the left and they don't care about consequences.

And when I see policies like this, when there is ample, easily found evidence that court space is not the reason for the horrific backlog in rape trials, I see a cheap sop and assume they don't care about the consequences.

Women deserve better and we need to question and examine and hold to account, not just accept that oh well it's something.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/trans-patients-nhs-constitution-single-sex-wards-women-b1154587.html

Sir Keir Starmer has said his views on gender issues “start with biology” as he backed blocking trans women from female-only hospital wards and prisons.

Labour aren't in power yet. And Starmer has said the above. Therefore any assertion he'll put TW rapists in womens prisons is theoretical.

Meanwhile actual rape victims are waiting years to get their cases heard and barely any reported rapes result in conviction, so rapists are getting away with it and are free to carry on raping. That is reality.

I prioritise a proven reality that is harming women and children over a theoretical risk.

Yet the Criminal Bar Assoc in the same article, says there aren't enough barristers.

No point judges saying they're available if there aren't enough barristers!

Labour have specifically said they don't support self ID. That's scaremongering.

Have any other parties said what they will do about the effective decriminalisation of rape?

I quoted what he said. He said it needs investment, not it is impossible.

They've also said that the EqA doesn't need amending and that they'll make it easier to get a GRC. Which creates an effective self ID system.

Yeah, let's see how well it goes trying to persuade barristers that they want to do this work, given how badly it's paid (if you think they'll ever come close to the pay available in other disciplines, you clearly have a magic money tree).

What are other parties planning to do about effective decriminalisation of rape?

How many barristers do you know, @CassieMaddox?

We're discussing Labour, who are likely to be in government soon.

I wrote the OP. I'd like to discuss the Labour policy on the issue of rape and other parties position on the same thanks. Rehashing posters cynicism about Labour and misunderstandings of their position on gender is tedious for all of us and also irrelevant to this thread.

As long as we're discussing what it's about (Labour's plans) you can't police what we're posting. But thanks for the guidance!

Fine. It's always nice to go back to the comfort blanket of the left being meanie liars, I know. Helps manage the cognitive dissonance of them producing a woman friendly policy.

As opposed to the comfort blanket of anyone challenging Labour's position and policies being Tories / right wing, you mean?

It's not women friendly when it clearly won't work and they absolutely know this!

They can do better, women expect better, and it's deeply worrying that even at this early stage in policy making, when they could offer the world on a stick, that they don't think it's worth the effort to deal with the obvious issues.

I'm fine with people challenging Labour's position and policies.

Inaccurate representation of their position and misquoting them (e.g. wrongly saying they will bring in self ID) comes across to me as a politically motivated argument and I assume that is from the right wing.

I personally find it really tedious to endlessly have to post the reality of Labour's policies to counter the misrepresentation and assume readers/lurkers also find it tedious. I'd rather discuss what posters think should be done about the effective decriminalisation of rape.

It's striking the answer from board regulars appears to be "its too hard, nothing can be done"

I think it will work. As alexandra said, the Tories claim there are judges for Rwanda. The BBC link I posted shows there is some capacity in the system for this, a bit of prioritised spending and I think they can make improvements.

I'd far rather see a government try, than just leave the status quo. Decriminalised rape is a scandal.

Every single policy from every political party can and should be dissected to see if it would work with reference to the party's other stated positions and known weaknesses. This is no different. Never forget, we don't owe Labour, Tory or any other party anything.

There aren't the resources. Personally I think it is much worse to lead victims to think change is going to happen because this plan has more holes than a sieve, but it is giving false hope to women who've been traumatised. I think that it grossly irresponsible.

What's needed is a long term plan that builds on Soteria. And that must include honesty about all the layers of staffing in the judiciary, CPS and the police, and the things they need to get rape cases to court.

What is definitely unwelcome is false hope. It is wrong.