Outing rape victims: A new Tory low

[DemolitionRed]

Apparently things are not quite austere enough, so the plan is this: If your third child was the result of a rape you can only have the money if you're prepared to fill in a form and tell the world.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kezia-dugdale-reads-out-victims-10293763

[Tom4784]

It's a terrible clause as it stands, victims and their children shouldn't be made to reveal their identities if they don't want to in order to receive help that they SHOULD be entitled to anyway. It's barbaric.

[Greg!]

The rape clause has been covered a lot recently in Scotland. I'm glad more people are now finding out about this because it's absolutely disgusting in this day and age

[smudgie]

Surely the form will/should be confidential.
If a rape is reported to the police and goes to court should be a consideration as well.
I can see reasoning behind needing some sort of back up for claims, otherwise it would be open to false claims.

[Livia]

Wow... that's shameful.

[Beso]

Apparently things are not quite austere enough, so the plan is this: If your third child was the result of a rape you can only have the money if you're prepared to fill in a form and tell the world.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kezia-dugdale-reads-out-victims-10293763

You only need a third party like a gp or social worker to confirm it. The world need not know.

[Livia]

What I thought was shocking was the comment in the letter "... the hatred and resentment I felt towards my baby". That's something I wouldn't want necessarily to share with the world.

[smudgie]

What I thought was shocking was the comment in the letter "... the hatred and resentment I felt towards my baby". That's something I wouldn't want necessarily to share with the world.

I would have thought the morning after pill would be offered to rape victims immediately.
To carry a baby and feel hatred and resentment must be horrendous.

[jaxie]

That's not very well thought out is it.

[joeysteele]

Just another badly thought out plan and form from a truly uncaring and extreme Party in govt.

Bad enough living with the after effects of a rape than to then be forced to go through it again on a claim form.

Surely decency is well and truly out the window if people can still feel this form is right from any govt.no matter what Party or Parties make up said govt.

[Beso]

Funny thing is, her aninomity is more at risk with this letter being read out than it would ever be if she had applied.

[jaxie]

Funny thing is, her aninomity is more at risk with this letter being read out than it would ever be if she had applied.

That's actually quite true.

[DemolitionRed]

Fortunately we don't know who the woman or her child is but she did go on to say that she now loves her child who thrives in a happy family.

I struggle with how a Parliament rammed with male MPs can decide that this is in any way appropriate.

[DemolitionRed]

Funny thing is, her aninomity is more at risk with this letter being read out than it would ever be if she had applied.

How so?

[Northern Monkey]

So say the government want to put a two child cap on benefits to stop these people who think having kids is a career choice.
Should they
A - Just say that if a third child is conceived through rape then 'tough luck,Sorry no benefits for that kid'?
Or should they
B - Say 'no,we will fund that child as it's not the fault of the mother'?

If option B is the fairest then how do they go about differentiating between valid and false claimants?

I don't know the answer but if the government are in the wrong then what is the right answer?

[jennyjuniper]

So say the government want to put a two child cap on benefits to stop these people who think having kids is a career choice.
Should they
A - Just say that if a third child is conceived through rape then 'tough luck,Sorry no benefits for that kid'?
Or should they
B - Say 'no,we will fund that child as it's not the fault of the mother'?

If option B is the fairest then how do they go about differentiating between valid and false claimants?

I don't know the answer but if the government are in the wrong then what is the right answer?

I don't see why the government should fund any children. If people want children they must pay for them themselves.

[DemolitionRed]

I don't see why the government should fund any children. If people want children they must pay for them themselves.

Child tax credit are for parents who work but are low earners.

Think of it as a government loan. Every child born in this country is used as collateral for government borrowing. They base that collateral on the child growing up and being a long term tax payer. If people stopped having children because they couldn't personally afford them without a bit of help the future economy would fail because there wouldn't be enough people.

[Beso]

How so?

Look into it, maybe some research first before the histrionics.

[Kazanne]

So say the government want to put a two child cap on benefits to stop these people who think having kids is a career choice.
Should they
A - Just say that if a third child is conceived through rape then 'tough luck,Sorry no benefits for that kid'?
Or should they
B - Say 'no,we will fund that child as it's not the fault of the mother'?

If option B is the fairest then how do they go about differentiating between valid and false claimants?

I don't know the answer but if the government are in the wrong then what is the right answer?

Tend to agree with this one, surely it is just to stop fraudulent claims ,hard to know the best thing to do really:conf:

[joeysteele]

So say the government want to put a two child cap on benefits to stop these people who think having kids is a career choice.
Should they
A - Just say that if a third child is conceived through rape then 'tough luck,Sorry no benefits for that kid'?
Or should they
B - Say 'no,we will fund that child as it's not the fault of the mother'?

If option B is the fairest then how do they go about differentiating between valid and false claimants?

I don't know the answer but if the government are in the wrong then what is the right answer?

Whatever the answer is it shouldn't be this stress intruding claim form for sure in my view.

This is the problem when full consideration and proper compassionate planning is not done by the govt who bring such plans into being.

It's a total disgrace anyone raped has to fill in this form and be made to relive it over again.
In rape,there is likely to be police or medics that have been involved in dealing with the traumatic after effects of the horrific incident.

Their word should be enough without forcing the victim to go through the trauma of dwelling on it again.
Especially if after keeping the child they have moved on in their life with said child too.

Then to have a govt obsessed with saving pittances while ignoring the much bigger fish,bringing in a totally insensitive policy that takes no account of the stress likely to be caused on a standardised claim form.

This should be disgraceful,from any govt.,it is to me but why am I not surprised since it's come from the Cons,that universal condemnation is not forthcoming.

[smudgie]

Is there anywhere that you can read this form, it would be interesting to read exactly what the questions are.
If the rape has been reported, then as Joey has said, there should be some sort of record to support her claim.
I dread to think that someone in an office has to read the whole scenario of the actual rape, not fair on either the rape victim or the person reading it.

[Beso]

Is there anywhere that you can read this form, it would be interesting to read exactly what the questions are.
If the rape has been reported, then as Joey has said, there should be some sort of record to support her claim.
I dread to think that someone in an office has to read the whole scenario of the actual rape, not fair on either the rape victim or the person reading it.

The independent has a better explanation if you search for "is the rape clause confidential"

[smudgie]

The independent has a better explanation if you search for "is the rape clause confidential"

Thanks parmnion, I will see if I can find it.

[smudgie]

The independent has a better explanation if you search for "is the rape clause confidential"

Ah, just read it.
All looks pretty confidential to me then.
So a report of the rape to the police does count as proof, even if the case is not proved in court, I am pleased about that.
You can also claim rape in a relationship as long as you are prepared for the man not to gain by the tax credit as well. So get rid of the tosser.
All seems reasonable to me.

[Tom4784]

I think, when limiting family benefits, a rape clause is necessary BUT I don't think expecting a victim to relive the trauma to use benefits they need and are entitled to is not at all right. Rape is not a claim that should be proved for benefits, it's unworkable to do so and a cruel way of limiting the use of benefits that people are entitled to because most women will not feel comfortable going through with reliving their trauma again and they shouldn't be forced to either.

[smudgie]

I think, when limiting family benefits, a rape clause is necessary BUT I don't think expecting a victim to relive the trauma to use benefits they need and are entitled to is not at all right. Rape is not a claim that should be proved for benefits, it's unworkable to do so and a cruel way of limiting the use of benefits that people are entitled to because most women will not feel comfortable going through with reliving their trauma again and they shouldn't be forced to either.

I would be very against having a woman go through reliving the trauma of her rape again to claim the benefit, but if it is a question of ticking a box to say it was reported so it can be checked out then I see no problem.
There has to be some sort of safeguard against fraudulent claims and a report number would seem to be the easiest and less traumatic way forward.
In the case of relationship rape then I think it is fair enough that the rapist should be in no way benefitting from the claim, if your partner thinks it's ok to rape you then you should not stay with him, for the child's sake as much as your own.

[Tom4784]

I would be very against having a woman go through reliving the trauma of her rape again to claim the benefit, but if it is a question of ticking a box to say it was reported so it can be checked out then I see no problem.
There has to be some sort of safeguard against fraudulent claims and a report number would seem to be the easiest and less traumatic way forward.
In the case of relationship rape then I think it is fair enough that the rapist should be in no way benefitting from the claim, if your partner thinks it's ok to rape you then you should not stay with him, for the child's sake as much as your own.

I think it's a callous move though, I imagine the form was added because it would serve as a deterrent for women to apply for the extra benefit. Even if it's just ticking a box, it's still going to affect the victim needlessly.

[joeysteele]

I think, when limiting family benefits, a rape clause is necessary BUT I don't think expecting a victim to relive the trauma to use benefits they need and are entitled to is not at all right. Rape is not a claim that should be proved for benefits, it's unworkable to do so and a cruel way of limiting the use of benefits that people are entitled to because most women will not feel comfortable going through with reliving their trauma again and they shouldn't be forced to either.


Absolutely right.

Cruel is in my view,the only applicable word, of course the victims of rape are going to have to think about it again and the horrors of it.

No victim of rape should have to,possibly years on be forced to bring it back to the forefront of their minds.
Cruel,yes that is exactly all this is.

[jennyjuniper]

Child tax credit are for parents who work but are low earners.

Think of it as a government loan. Every child born in this country is used as collateral for government borrowing. They base that collateral on the child growing up and being a long term tax payer. If people stopped having children because they couldn't personally afford them without a bit of help the future economy would fail because there wouldn't be enough people.

Oh I'd be willing to help people who are working and not earning much, but it's the ones who just keep having babies as a means of living off the state that I object to.

[smudgie]

I think it's a callous move though, I imagine the form was added because it would serve as a deterrent for women to apply for the extra benefit. Even if it's just ticking a box, it's still going to affect the victim needlessly.

I can't see ticking a box anywhere near as traumatic a reminder as looking at the child you love everyday know what kind of person their father was.
Unfortunately there won't be an easy answer, but there does have to be some proof otherwise anybody could use the loophole.

[Northern Monkey]

Well i mean obviously the claimant is going to have inform the government in the first place that the third child was conceived from a rape.That would obviously involve the original claim form at a minimum.
Then maybe if there was some kind of court database that can be checked to see whether anybody was convicted then that would be a more sensitive way.
Any disputes would still have to be sorted.Chances are though if there was a dispute then it's more than likely a fraudulent claim if all cases were logged on the database.

[Beso]

Ah, just read it.
All looks pretty confidential to me then.
So a report of the rape to the police does count as proof, even if the case is not proved in court, I am pleased about that.
You can also claim rape in a relationship as long as you are prepared for the man not to gain by the tax credit as well. So get rid of the tosser.
All seems reasonable to me.

And me.

[user104658]

Child tax credit are for parents who work but are low earners.

Think of it as a government loan. Every child born in this country is used as collateral for government borrowing. They base that collateral on the child growing up and being a long term tax payer. If people stopped having children because they couldn't personally afford them without a bit of help the future economy would fail because there wouldn't be enough people.

The top part is actually incorrect DR, Child Tax Credits are paid regardless of employment status, its only Working Tax Credits that are dependent on employment.

Totally agree with all of the rest of it, though. I keep seeing the same people saying that the government shouldn't fund people having kids, and at the same time, that they want less immigration. Absolutely zero understanding of the fact that a declining population would collapse the economy. Not debatably or in theory... It's just what would happen. Aging populations are screwed.

[DemolitionRed]

The top part is actually incorrect DR, Child Tax Credits are paid regardless of employment status, its only Working Tax Credits that are dependent on employment.

Totally agree with all of the rest of it, though. I keep seeing the same people saying that the government shouldn't fund people having kids, and at the same time, that they want less immigration. Absolutely zero understanding of the fact that a declining population would collapse the economy. Not debatably or in theory... It's just what would happen. Aging populations are screwed.

Ah ok. Thanks for the correction TS