[smudgie]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[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.