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.

This seems like a headline grabbing policy with no actual explanation of how or why it would work to reduce VAWG. Pretty much like the “X new hospitals” or”Y more nurses” promises from the Tories.

Our infrastructure and workforce needs long term planning and investment. A party would get my vote with a policy that, for example, expands the number of places for U.K. students to study law and medicine and dentistry, along with grants and bursaries for those students with an expectation that they don’t have to be repaid providing that the student works in the NHS or criminal justice system for X number of years after qualifying.

You could use that policy for any key area with a shortage of qualified staff, but those professions seem to take longest to qualify and thus incur the biggest student debts. Or rely on the students coming from a wealthy family who can afford to subsidise the student. It doesn’t always mean the brightest/best students get through the system.

If someone raped me, my priority would be to get them arrested and banged up. I don't give a fuck about the tiny possibility that they might claim to be trans, and if the rapist wants me to call them "she" frankly I don't care.

He actually had rather a good track record as DPP on targeting violence against women, so I'm pretty happy that he has a good handle on the subject and how to achieve it.

Easy to say when you're not in that situation, isn't it? But don't worry about trivialising other women's trauma at having to do just that.

It sounds like the OP & some posters here are trying an old party politics trick.

In the HoC sometimes a government wants to bring in a policy change which the opposition will oppose. The government will put something extra in the bill which the opposition will look bad for opposing. Then they can taunt the opposition with it forever afterwards.

Here, the inclusion of these court proposals means that anyone who says they won't vote Labour can be jeered at with a cheery, "So you support rape then. Call yourself a feminist?".

Someone upthread said it would take 8 years to implement. Given that Starmer, even if he gets in, could be out in 5 years or less it's pointless, or at any rate much less relevant than things (good & bad) which can be implemented far more quickly & have a huge impact on women's lives.

I'll take a look at the article. 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.

Edited for typo

Labour has defined a woman as an adult female, and a girl as a child female. Yes, it does include single sex spaces where necessary, and there is nothing in Labour's policies that suggests they disagree.

However, violence against women self-evidently goes far, far beyond the use of single sex spaces and I for one welcome a party that is prepared to do something about that - in contrast to the Tories who are currently engaged in allowing convicted offenders against both women and men out of prison early.

Well, the Home Office managed to magic up new courts, judges and lawyers overnight to take on a substantial increase in challenges to the Rwanda legislation, so it looks like it can be done.

Well, no, you need to know which individuals are committing the violence. It's not much use knowing what category they come into when it comes to actually going out and arresting and charging them.

Well given that the police have released descriptions of men they want to find calling them women, I think it kind of does

When the police are hunting a man who has assaulted a woman it matters that they are described accurately otherwise what use is it?

Starmer has a good track record on this. I know people in rape support charities who really rated him for the work he did when DPP, so he has walked the walk and knows what he's talking about I'm similarly cynical about politicians, but I'd be prepared to give him full credit for absolutely intending to bust a gut to make this happen.

Yes, he will find it difficult because frankly the economy is in a horrendous mess, but that is a problem that any incoming PM will have to deal with, and we know from what is going on currently that the Conservatives simply have no political will to make it happen. Probably because they don't really care much about violence against women if dealing with it means they might have to pay a penny more in tax.

But the thread isn't about all things trans. It's about violence against women.

Oh well, then, let's forget it. Better still, vote in the party that doesn't give a toss about violence against women.

That seems fair enough to me. No-one can say how they're going to fund things till they actually get a look at the books, and it would be irresponsible to try. But we already have the Tories finding millions for the Rwanda bollocks and telling us there is enough in the coffers to fund all their proposed tax cuts, so who knows?

All the people saying it's all hopeless because there's no money, what's your proposal? Shall we just assume there's nothing that can be done, ever, and just give up arresting people for violence?

What is your suggestion, then?

It's clearly not going to be easy, and would require some pretty root-and-branch reform including in particular funding the criminal bar and legal aid better to so to attract more people into that side of legal practice. Is there anything wrong in voting in someone with the will to put that process into effect? Yes, it might require tax rises: I don't want it, but I'm prepared to pay more tax if it means something effective is done about violent crime generally and VAWG in particular.

@Scruffily I'm not intending nor ever have voted Conservative nor ever will.

It is so blinking tedious that discussing this policy and pointing out the lack of trust, the lack of resources and other issues with the implementation leads to accusations of not wanting to take action on this topic.

Why does that have to be the inevitable consequence of transwomen being put in women's prisons? There are plenty of ways to avoid it, not least ensuring that a rapist transwoman is never locked up with a woman prisoner.

It's the Tories who have been locking up transwomen with women, not Labour.

You ensure that by putting them in the male estate. With or without a GRC.

It doesn't matter what "a whole bunch of us" have said, it doesn't make it true. The Criminal Bar Association has pointed out that there certainly is court space. Sunak has demonstrated that he can recruit lawyers to be judges when he wants it, albeit in his case only for immigration courts.

There are imaginative potential solutions to the prison space problem too, in particular abolishing short custodial sentences. It's been demonstrated time and again that they are ineffective - they're not a deterrent, they don't mean that victims are safe for any length of time, and if anything they drive people into crime because when you get a prison sentence, however short, you lose your job and frequently your home. There's no time in a short sentence to do anything sensible by way of rehabilitation. It makes much more sense to keep people out of prison and go for community-based sentences including incentives for rehab. People who get short sentences are not people convicted of serious violence, hence this leaves more space for violent criminals to be locked up. Win-win.

As Rory Stewart has attested, it's not a policy the Tories like because it doesn't go down well with their right wing, so a fresh look at it by another party is overdue.

If they clear the backlog, the stats will improve. It's in part the increasing wait for cases to come to trial which makes victims back out. It also makes it much more difficult to convict because memories fade with time.

Surely that's a simple statement of fact? The definition of rape requires use of a penis. A "woman woman" doesn't have a penis, so can't commit rape. QED.

It doesn't matter what "a whole bunch of us" have said, it doesn't make it true. The Criminal Bar Association has pointed out that there certainly is court space. Sunak has demonstrated that he can recruit lawyers to be judges when he wants it, albeit in his case only for immigration courts.

There is physical space. Just the small issue of not enough judicial time or barristers (on either side) to conduct the hearings.

Isn't the point that they may choose the prison, they can't choose how the prison will be run? Therefore, if any prison is deemed to be a particular danger to other prisoners, they will be held in segregation whichever type of prison they go into. That's fine with me.

Frankly, I don't think that's the best solution, a better one would be having separate institutions for transpeople, but it's not necessarily the complete no-no you suggest.

If clearing the backlog increases the chance of conviction, which it will, and puts violent people away more quickly, I'm all in favour.

Self-evidently there are. Not enough, certainly, but it's simply untrue to say there are none.

I meant no extra, obviously. Picking at missed words doesn't magic barristers and judges out of thin air!