Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Victims of sexual violence distressed by MPs’ ‘pugnacious’ questioning

3 replies

IwantToRetire · 22/04/2026 18:36

Victims’ commissioner makes formal complaint after committee session left one attender ‘shocked, upset and extremely distressed’

Victims of rape and sexual violence have told parliamentarians they felt anxious and distressed during a Westminster evidence session, with one stating that witnessing “pugnacious” questioning had resulted in her “breaking down, sobbing and struggling to breathe”.

The victims’ commissioner has made a formal complaint to the chair of an influential group of MPs after a highly charged evidence session carried out by the public bill committee for the courts and tribunals bill about controversial changes to jury trials.

Claire Waxman told MPs she could not “in good conscience, encourage victim-survivors to participate in evidence sessions conducted in a manner that may expose them to retraumatisation or emotional harm”. The letter, sent by the victims’ commissioner office chief executive, Susannah Hancock, said that the committee chair, John Hayes, failed to “prevent the tone from escalating” with exchanges becoming “unnecessarily adversarial”.

Article continues at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/21/victims-of-sexual-violence-distressed-by-mps-pugnacious-questioning

Victims of sexual violence distressed by MPs’ ‘pugnacious’ questioning

Exclusive: Victims’ commissioner makes formal complaint after committee session left one attender ‘shocked, upset and extremely distressed’

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/21/victims-of-sexual-violence-distressed-by-mps-pugnacious-questioning

OP posts:
LoremIpsumCici · 22/04/2026 19:00

It says in the article only one victim (not victims) was upset by witnessing questions that she felt crossed the line into an adversarial style that left her sobbing, hyperventilating etc. with a formal complaint filed.

I just think she should have left the room as soon as she felt the proceedings were affecting her? PTSD from sexual violence is serious and chances are any proceedings on the sensitive subject of criminal trials for sexual violence would have distressed one or more victims there to give statements or observe.

IwantToRetire · 23/04/2026 17:33

LoremIpsumCici · 22/04/2026 19:00

It says in the article only one victim (not victims) was upset by witnessing questions that she felt crossed the line into an adversarial style that left her sobbing, hyperventilating etc. with a formal complaint filed.

I just think she should have left the room as soon as she felt the proceedings were affecting her? PTSD from sexual violence is serious and chances are any proceedings on the sensitive subject of criminal trials for sexual violence would have distressed one or more victims there to give statements or observe.

What a crass anti woman anti feminist remark.

The politicians knew what the session was about, must have been advised about who some of the witnesses were, but persisted in their right to behave like entitled bullies.

If you invite people to give evidence, whatever group of people they are, it is you business to educate yourself about them

And then to justify because it was only one, that is as unacceptable that because there was only one person in a wheelchair who wanted to attend a meeting but the organiseers couldn't be bothered to find a wheel chair accessible venue, it didn't matter.

Nothing like being on a feminist forum and to be told women should not make a fuss about their rights.

Angry
OP posts:
LoremIpsumCici · 25/04/2026 19:55

@IwantToRetire
It is clear to me by your opinion that you do not suffer from diagnosed PTSD as a result of sexual violence and therefore have an unrealistic view if what that is like to live with.

It is also clear to me that you think feminism means preventing all? most? women from being exposed to distressing material just in case one of them gets distressed. Even if they, in the case of the complainant here, knowingly put themself into a discussion that they knew witnessing might cause their PTSD to rear up?

Have you been in court and faced your own rapist? Do you know how distressing that is? You would probably call the crown prosecutor a bully by your logic because reliving it to get justice is panic inducing, tears flowing, eating your own snot awful. But it is necessary.

You would have them do what? Minimise and dance around like it is not life changing? Is that what you mean by they should have ‘educated themselves’. I’d say they did, only one victim unable to cope out of a roomful means they did educate themselves while one survivor misjudged her limits. If there had been numerous complaints, we would have no disagreement at all.

As for rights, when did anyone with PTSD get the right for all society to protect them from anything and everything that might cause flashbacks and distress?

No such right exists. This victim filing a formal complaint over what she knew was a risk of attending such a meeting is less like a wheelchair user trapped outside and more like a veteran with PTSD deciding to go to bonfire night and then filing a formal complaint because the fireworks they went to see caused them to sob, hyperventilate and run off into a sheep field.

No one forced her to go or stay. She should have done what I do, if starts to be too much, then leave or know yourself and find another way to participate in activism where you aren’t risking the distress.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page