The Tories and the 'Rape Clause'

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,368
The Tory government have recently implemented changes to Child Tax Credits and the ‘Universal Credit’ benefit system which mean that people making a new claim after 6 April 2017 will have the number of children they can claim for capped at two. One exception to this is if the third child was born as a result of what the government calls “non-consensual conception.”

This clause has now been dubbed the 'Rape Clause' requires the claimant not only to name the child the exception will apply to, but also have a “third-party professional” fill out part of a mandatory 8-page claim form that the victim of rape has to complete.

If anyone has seen I, Daniel Blake, they will get a sense of what is going on here.

But there is more - there is an exception to the right to make a claim on behalf of a name child of rape - the exemption will not apply to claimants who still live with their rapist. This is despite the fact that 45% of all rapes in Britain occur within existing relationships and the reality that a woman is murdered every three days by their abuse partner.

Rather than support women attempting to leave abusive relationships the Tories have capped Housing Benefit which is destined to force the closure of more than two-thirds of the existing and inadequate women's refuges.

This is the Tory party of Theresa May that is seeking re-election on the claim of being 'in the national interest' - unless you are a rape victim of course.
 


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The Tory government have recently implemented changes to Child Tax Credits and the ‘Universal Credit’ benefit system which mean that people making a new claim after 6 April 2017 will have the number of children they can claim for capped at two. One exception to this is if the third child was born as a result of what the government calls “non-consensual conception.”

This clause has now been dubbed the 'Rape Clause' requires the claimant not only to name the child the exception will apply to, but also have a “third-party professional” fill out part of a mandatory 8-page claim form that the victim of rape has to complete.

If anyone has seen I, Daniel Blake, they will get a sense of what is going on here.

But there is more - there is an exception to the right to make a claim on behalf of a name child of rape - the exemption will not apply to claimants who still live with their rapist. This is despite the fact that 45% of all rapes in Britain occur within existing relationships and the reality that a woman is murdered every three days by their abuse partner.

Rather than support women attempting to leave abusive relationships the Tories have capped Housing Benefit which is destined to force the closure of more than two-thirds of the existing and inadequate women's refuges.

This is the Tory party of Theresa May that is seeking re-election on the claim of being 'in the national interest' - unless you are a rape victim of course.
It seems the Tories and the Trots have a lot in common.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-workers-party-rape-kangaroo-court
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,368
oh holy bejaysus - we have two degenerates on here making light of a serious issue for rape victims in Britain - not surprising given who is involved.

If ye eejits want to comment on this serious issue - then please do so - otherwise p*ss-off with this kind of sh*te.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,368
The Victims are looking for a Public Inquiry, and not an inquiry run by the Socialist Party, or any of their fronts. I actually think you are a disgusting human being, to suggest that I'm a degenerate for commenting on rape, and for saying I am making light of the issue.
Here is your problem - Lois Austin, who you quoted in your attempt to take a pot-shot at the Sociailst Party, is a member of the Socialist Party - and the Socialist Party fully supports the demand for a full public inquiry into the behaviour of undercover police officers who sexually abused women while undercover.

And you are making light of this issue - you are using the issue of rape to take unfounded pot-shots at the Socialist Party instead of addressing the disgraceful antics of the Tories who are further victimising the victims of rape in Britain.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Here is your problem - Lois Austin, who you quoted in your attempt to take a pot-shot at the Sociailst Party, is a member of the Socialist Party - and the Socialist Party fully supports the demand for a full public inquiry into the behaviour of undercover police officers who sexually abused women while undercover.

And you are making light of this issue - you are using the issue of rape to take unfounded pot-shots at the Socialist Party instead of addressing the disgraceful antics of the Tories who are further victimising the victims of rape in Britain.
What the Tories are doing is surreal, to say the least, but the Trots don't have any moral high ground in this either. Only last night you were given political succour to the cannibal rapists in Syria - as you supported the mass rapists in Libya in 2011.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
oh holy bejaysus - we have two degenerates on here making light of a serious issue for rape victims in Britain - not surprising given who is involved.

If ye eejits want to comment on this serious issue - then please do so - otherwise p*ss-off with this kind of sh*te.
They're probably the same poster.
 

storybud1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
6,531
Here is your problem - Lois Austin, who you quoted in your attempt to take a pot-shot at the Sociailst Party, is a member of the Socialist Party - and the Socialist Party fully supports the demand for a full public inquiry into the behaviour of undercover police officers who sexually abused women while undercover.

And you are making light of this issue - you are using the issue of rape to take unfounded pot-shots at the Socialist Party instead of addressing the disgraceful antics of the Tories who are further victimising the victims of rape in Britain.
Pot Shot ? emm, surely you mean cannot miss shot ???

Attacking the tories from your socialist view does not mean anything, sure socialists are pro-abortion on demand and could not give a flying fook about kids in the first place. (it works both ways)

Socialists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro are responsible for millions of deaths in the last 100 years, haven't you figured it out that you are just cannon fodder for scum that will use you to sell their brand ?

sure socialists used mentally ill women to try and get abortion in here,

What are you ? 1% in the polls ? get a fooking life pal, open your eyes and read some history, enjoy your time here and stop being a puppet for socialist gangsters that always seem to end up millionaires like the rest of the players in the politics game.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,368
Is that Militant Labour, who are now called Solidarity? I never asked for the permission of any elected member of the Socialist Party, or the Socialist Workers Party, to report, or not to report a rape to the Police, and I have never sought advice from your party on the issue, as the Socialist Party, Militant Labour or when they were in the United Left Alliance with the Socialist Workers Party. Your party member on Dublin City Council, Michael O'Brien, has in fact Tweeted support for an holistic approach to dealing with rapists.

Your problem is that you want to represent the victims and the abusers, but life doesn't work like that. At no point in time did any of the elected representatives in the United Left Alliance, indicate to me in,in my family home, that they supported Kangaroo Courts, just as none of them indicated that they supported Islamic Terrorism, because they would have been shown the door, as people who have since made alliances with them have found out, and they were childhood friends, so stick that in your Trot pipe and smoke it!
So now you revert to type - making the same unfounded allegations as your alter ego when your attempt at a pot shot blows up in your face.

I will not be responding to you in future - the issue of rape and the treatment of rape victims by the Tories is far too serious an issue to allow you to sidetracked it into this nonsense.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Excellent piece from Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola Sturgeon: Social security changes have come into effect which are appalling (From Evening Times)

This is of course the same Tory government which brought us the Bedroom Tax, humiliating Work Capability Assessments for sick and disabled people, and who have left people suicidal with their brutal sanctions regime.

But even by these appalling standards, the rape clause is a new low.


And it is utterly shameful that the Scottish Conservatives have meekly offered their support.

. ....

The Tories claim that there is no money to give financial support to these low-income families – yet in the very same budget they introduced the rape clause, they also introduced sweeping tax cuts for the highest earners south of the border. The Scottish Tories wanted these tax cuts implemented in Scotland too. .....

But don’t think that the Tory Government will back down easily. Let’s remember they fought families of disabled children all the way to the Supreme Court trying to force them to pay the Bedroom Tax.
 

PeacefulViking

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
2,469
So they have restructured the child benefit to no longer increase if you have more than 2 children. Seems completely reasonable, and if this had always been the rule no one would react. Then they introduce an extra support for women who have gotten pregnant as result of rape. Once again, seems like a perfectly understandable wish. Finally, they of course require some proof before people can claim the special benefit for rape victims.

All in all, nothing remarkable about the policy unless you manage to spin it as somehow penalizing rape victims, which would be absurd.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Umm, nope. How pray are the victims to establish they are raped, other than by obtaining a conviction against the offender? Or simply make a declaration to the effect?

For political innocents, I will remind you of the last fiasco the Tories introduced along the same lines, lo these 20 years ago, the Child Support Agency. Originally, a woman could not claim support unless she named the father of her child, the idea being it would be garnished from his wages or benefits.

It fell apart when a young lady said "I have no idea - it happened at a party."

"Well you must have some notion who you were canoodling with."

"Nope, I was being sick out a window and he came up behind me."

Coomonsense was never a Tory strong point. petunia.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,368
Umm, nope. How pray are the victims to establish they are raped, other than by obtaining a conviction against the offender? Or simply make a declaration to the effect?

For political innocents, I will remind you of the last fiasco the Tories introduced along the same lines, lo these 20 years ago, the Child Support Agency. Originally, a woman could not claim support unless she named the father of her child, the idea being it would be garnished from his wages or benefits.

It fell apart when a young lady said "I have no idea - it happened at a party."

"Well you must have some notion who you were canoodling with."

"Nope, I was being sick out a window and he came up behind me."

Coomonsense was never a Tory strong point. petunia.
And the woman has to name the child born as a result of rape - victimising not only the woman but the child as well.
 

Roomtwo

Active member
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
238
Its got talked about more in Scotland because the SNP are fairly focussed on equality and child poverty, and Alison Thewliss and others have been working on this for a long time, and because we can ask Ruth Davidson, MSP and Scottish Tory Leader, to justify UK govt policies.

She refused to communicate other than through her spokeperson. She said she supported the cut to third child and the rape clause, and that women in this situation will all be treated sensitively by specially trained employees and have help from other agencies. She will have known this wasn't true.

Under pressure she repeated that she supported the rape clause and said that if the Scottish govt don't like it they can pay the tax credits of those affected by making cuts to other public services and said that if Nicola Sturgeon won't do this she is a hypocrite. It sounds like its probably not within the Scottish government's power to cover cuts to tax credits. They are covering cuts to benefits like the bedroom tax and housing benefit for 18-21 year olds. The Scottish block grant faces ever bigger cuts in the future. Ruth Davidson supports those cuts and does all she can to prevent Scotland getting any more power over its own economy. Her statement didn't go down well.

This has all been talked over on Scottish political twitter and in blogs and newspapers and it increased support for the petition in Scotland but its still not wonderful. Even with all the above reasons for why there's a bit more interest in Scotland, the map on the page for the petition to WM about the rape clause is odd.


I can't copy the image or link to the page, but what I'm asking about is that today most of the signatures are still from Scotland. Scottish constituencies are in red and orange and the rest of the UK is yellow with a few grey constituencies, meaning no signatures from there. Until a few days ago Scotland was red and orange and most of the UK south of the Scotland-England border was grey. In many constituencies there'll be more people employed and volunteering in working against VAW and child poverty than have signed the petition. There's still Labour constituencies with 1 or 0 signatures. I understand petition fatigue, and I get why Tories want to frame this as SNP virtue signalling/grievance mongering, but are others seeing this as somehow a Scottish women's issue? I'm hoping its just that people in Scotland got started sooner for all the reasons above.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,400
So they have restructured the child benefit to no longer increase if you have more than 2 children. Seems completely reasonable, and if this had always been the rule no one would react. Then they introduce an extra support for women who have gotten pregnant as result of rape. Once again, seems like a perfectly understandable wish. Finally, they of course require some proof before people can claim the special benefit for rape victims.

All in all, nothing remarkable about the policy unless you manage to spin it as somehow penalising rape victims, which would be absurd.
Emotionalism and hysteria are more or less essential for most political discourse these days, especially when it comes to handouts. The more it involves free money for people, the more frantic the rhetoric will become. It is always even more toxic when it makes women even slightly accountable for their behaviour, as if we should just pay up and take people at their word. Personally I don't see why fathers in general are not forced to pay up to begin with. If this were the case, most people would not need welfare. Note that I do not disapprove of child benefit (quite the opposite) but I do disapprove of people acting as if it is evil to seek verification before spending public money.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top