hibs.net Messageboard

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 148 of 148

Thread: The Rape Clause

  1. #121
    @hibs.net private member Golden Fleece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    between a brewery & distillery
    Posts
    11,099
    I would like to know what happens in the scenario.

    A woman is raped and has a child, she qualifies for child benefit and doesn't need to fill in the form. She is raped a second time and has another child, again she doesn't need to fill in the form. she then gets married, and has a child with her husband. Child 3 doesn't qualify for child benefit as it was not the result of rape, can she retrospectively fill in the claim form for the first two children as she was raped, or is there a time bar?

    Anyone know the answer as all we hear is the 3rd child is conceived as a result of rape, not any of the others.
    #Persevered
    Scotland can be a beacon, within these islands and beyond, for a socially just and sustainable society. Whilst there are many priorities which will require independence, there is also much that can and must be done now by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To a degree I agree 🤣

    But is that not exactly what devolved government is all about, especially one that has its own powers to top up the reserved benefit, create its own benefits and raise its own taxes?

    Indeed the SG were quick enough to move to mitigate the bedroom tax so why in this case were they unwilling to take their own actions especially when the money involved is significantly less?
    1. Yay!

    2. To a degree, I agree. But constructing tax and spend policies is I would argue more likely to be done in a balanced (and importantly, accountable) way if different bodies at different levels aren't trying to counter each other.

    3 .Bedroom tax mitigation costs 35M pa. If the Indy article I quoted above is accurate, this would cost 4-5x more.

  4. #123
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    7,713
    Quote Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. Yay!

    2. To a degree, I agree. But constructing tax and spend policies is I would argue more likely to be done in a balanced (and importantly, accountable) way if different bodies at different levels aren't trying to counter each other.

    3 .Bedroom tax mitigation costs 35M pa. If the Indy article I quoted above is accurate, this would cost 4-5x more.

    I took the cost from the 30m over 5 years quoted previously

    As it is I think I've made all the points I'm gonna make on this thread (as ultimately I don't agree with the bloody policy anyway) but quite enjoyed seeing the counter arguments from those that bother to actually answer the questions posed from both sides

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I took the cost from the 30m over 5 years quoted previously

    As it is I think I've made all the points I'm gonna make on this thread (as ultimately I don't agree with the bloody policy anyway) but quite enjoyed seeing the counter arguments from those that bother to actually answer the questions posed from both sides
    I think Brian Wilson (probably deliberately) compared the 800M over 5 years the SG got for infra spending with 30M over 1 year to mitigate this. But the cost ramps up year on year because the policy only applies to new claimants (I think).

    I just keep on making the same points in an endless boring loop. Vote Yes and I promise to shut up.

  6. #125
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by allmodcons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For once, just answer the question.

    Do you think the Scottish Parliament was set up to mitigate repugnant Conservative policies.

    Yes or No and I'll get back to work.
    Perhaps you will answer my question?

    It was set up to allow scotland to take a different path on any policy area within its competence.

    Whther a policy is tory and/or repugnant is a value judgement for the scottish parliament. It obbiously thinks this policy is, so it can do something abput it.

    Bit im stupid so im still waiting on you telling me what devolution was actually for?

  7. #126
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I am conflicted and I understand the intention of your use of "rape victims" to point up the emotive aspect of focusing on that particular part of the issue.

    What we're really talking about is the 2 child cap in general though. As I've already stated that I think it's a short-termist, unfair and counterproductive policy designed to play to the Daily Mail style demonisation of benefit claimants, ie. the poor, in general.

    So yes, I would like to see these people helped. But, as always there are unintended consequences:

    The unionists have been absolutely gagging for Scot gov to be suckered into raising taxes. The principal tax they control is on income and only earned income at that, ie. obviously the most unpopular tax to raise. Afaics the plan is: pressure the SG to raise income tax, hope there is an unpopularity dividend for the SNP and with any luck the restoration of a pro-Union majority at Holyrood, hope independence dies as an issue and then the end-game, remove Barnett funding (which tbh, looked at with a degree of objectivity *is* unfair on Wales and the English regions). With a suitably declining economy, Scotland is hamstrung, forever dependent on UK handouts.

    So, the long term goal for me of building a country with generous and fair welfare provision is further away than ever and the short term sticking plaster ends up being an enabler of semi-perpetual Tory rule.

    The policy should be opposed where the competence for that policy lies.
    Ok, but if that is the case then surely the anti 2 child cap lobby using 'rape' is even more cynical and exploitative?

    Im not spinning a tory line, im just stating what seems to me to really obvious, if there is a policy a government abhors so much.

    By all means they should make political capital out of an issue they feel strongly about, but they should be taking the appropriate steps to ameliorate it.

    As for the 2 child cap, i actually dont think it is the real issue, because i would guess most of the public would agree with it amd think it is sensible.

    Hence its opponents need to use 'rape' as the hook on which to hang their opposition.

  8. #127
    @hibs.net private member allmodcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Perhaps you will answer my question?

    It was set up to allow scotland to take a different path on any policy area within its competence.

    Whther a policy is tory and/or repugnant is a value judgement for the scottish parliament. It obbiously thinks this policy is, so it can do something abput it.

    Bit im stupid so im still waiting on you telling me what devolution was actually for?
    Thanks for the Yes/No response!

    There is a huge difference between taking a different path on policy and spending money mitigating repugnant welfare decisions made by a hard right Westminster Government. I know what devolution entails and say, again, that the Scottish Government should not be expected to take money from a fixed budget to mitigate crass decisions made at Westminster. Give the SG control over welfare and they'll stand or fall on the political choices they make.

    You won't admit it, but it's just pure deflection by the Scottish Conservatives. They don't dare question their beloved leader at Westminster and, instead., look to blame the SNP for not finding the money. Why can't they just admit it's an ill conceived policy?

    Tell me this, who will be the first to moan about lack of investment in education, health and infrastructure if the SG is continually being asked to mitigate bad welfare decisions made at Westminster?

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ok, but if that is the case then surely the anti 2 child cap lobby using 'rape' is even more cynical and exploitative?

    Im not spinning a tory line, im just stating what seems to me to really obvious, if there is a policy a government abhors so much.

    By all means they should make political capital out of an issue they feel strongly about, but they should be taking the appropriate steps to ameliorate it.

    As for the 2 child cap, i actually dont think it is the real issue, because i would guess most of the public would agree with it amd think it is sensible.

    Hence its opponents need to use 'rape' as the hook on which to hang their opposition.
    I think it's absolutely justified to draw attention to the rape clause as:

    - the fact that the Tories thought women having to revisit that kind of trauma via form filling and interviews with an untrained official/benefits assessor tells you a lot about their attitude to benefits claimants in general
    - it highlights the arbitrary nature of the 2 child cap in general. It's ok to pick on and harm the potential of some kids but not others based on the circumstances of their conception.

  10. #129
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by allmodcons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thanks for the Yes/No response!

    There is a huge difference between taking a different path on policy and spending money mitigating repugnant welfare decisions made by a hard right Westminster Government. I know what devolution entails and say, again, that the Scottish Government should not be expected to take money from a fixed budget to mitigate crass decisions made at Westminster. Give the SG control over welfare and they'll stand or fall on the political choices they make.

    You won't admit it, but it's just pure deflection by the Scottish Conservatives. They don't dare question their beloved leader at Westminster and, instead., look to blame the SNP for not finding the money. Why can't they just admit it's an ill conceived policy?

    Tell me this, who will be the first to moan about lack of investment in education, health and infrastructure if the SG is continually being asked to mitigate bad welfare decisions made at Westminster?
    How am i supposed to answer a loaded question like that yes or no. Lets give it a try.

    Do the scottish power have the power amd resources to stop it affecting a single scot? Yes or no?

  11. #130
    @hibs.net private member ronaldo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,048
    Quote Originally Posted by G B Young View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    IIRC the additional 800 million of budget resources referred to by Brian Wilson is funding that the Scottish Government did not expect to have. If mitigating the clause would, as he estimates, cost approximately 30m then perhaps here is an opportunity for Nicola Sturgeon to do more than criticise and prove she is genuinely motivated to help. As far as I'm aware the SNP have yet to commit to how they plan to spend the additional funding.

    Nobody is denying this is a delicate issue but Sturgeon's present stance smacks of political posturing over a change to the tax credit system which was actually announced in 2015 and, it would seem, aroused little in the way of public controversy at the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is child benefit caught under tax credit rules? And as I have pointed out previously Scotland has specific devolved powers to top up child benefit if it sees fit as well as introducing new benefits.

    And if the 30m is accurate out of the 800m then that is the cost over 5 years so 6m a year to mitigate the policy out of a budget of 33bn a year. So 0.02% of the overall budget?

    If the above holds true then it's clear to me that it would have been rather straight forward to mitigate rather than pontificate...in fact it would have been rather easy to do both.
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So explain to me then why the Scottish government could not have used their own powers to do the following:

    Top up child benefit to mitigate the change

    Create a new Scottish benefit to replace the lost UK benefit

    Committed 0.02% of their budget to fund the change

    Raised or varied the numerous taxes they are responsible for to cover the rather limited cost of doing the above.


    That not to say that they should need to do so as I think it's a daft policy but when there is a divergence in views on benefit and spending the powers exist in Scotland to exercise our own will on that.

    Why then despite knowing about this change for the best part of two years and opposing it at Westminster have the SG decided that they would rather shout 'rape clause' than actually do any of the above?

    As I said I agree with their opposition to the policy, I certainly don't agree with how they have used it for political and emotive purposes then sat on their hands. Reeks of duplicity.
    It looks like you guys have taken Brian Wilson's figures as fact, without checking. Simar, you are normally spot on with your figures, so why would you continue to use those figures when Golden Fleece has put you right on them?

  12. #131
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,598
    Quote Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think it's absolutely justified to draw attention to the rape clause as:

    - the fact that the Tories thought women having to revisit that kind of trauma via form filling and interviews with an untrained official/benefits assessor tells you a lot about their attitude to benefits claimants in general
    - it highlights the arbitrary nature of the 2 child cap in general. It's ok to pick on and harm the potential of some kids but not others based on the circumstances of their conception.
    Or it encourages responsible family planning in order to help kids 1 & 2.

  13. #132
    First Team Breakthrough
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Fleece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would like to know what happens in the scenario.

    A woman is raped and has a child, she qualifies for child benefit and doesn't need to fill in the form. She is raped a second time and has another child, again she doesn't need to fill in the form. she then gets married, and has a child with her husband. Child 3 doesn't qualify for child benefit as it was not the result of rape, can she retrospectively fill in the claim form for the first two children as she was raped, or is there a time bar?

    Anyone know the answer as all we hear is the 3rd child is conceived as a result of rape, not any of the others.
    That's a very good question and one i would like to hear an answer to.

  14. #133
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    2,658
    Could it be as simple as submitting a police crime reference? I'd prefer to think she wasn't as unlucky as you portray and it was twins, so with the reference submitted then child 3 would technically be considered their 1st.

    I think




    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

  15. #134
    @hibs.net private member ronaldo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,048
    The Scottish Government have banned private firms from doing benefit assessments. Doing things differently to the Tories, AGAIN.

    https://t.co/DHrbfr1nLE

  16. #135
    @hibs.net private member allmodcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How am i supposed to answer a loaded question like that yes or no. Lets give it a try.

    Do the scottish power have the power amd resources to stop it affecting a single scot? Yes or no?
    Yes.

    Will they? Perhaps.

    Should they? No, not know.

    Why? Because this is an issue affecting women right across the UK. It should be stopped at Westminster which is why the SNP at Westminster are campaigning for the UK Government to reconsider their position. Why can't any of the more 'caring' Tories at Holyrood support the SNP position at Westminster by pressurising their UK counterparts? Is it, perhaps, because they too find the policy acceptable?

  17. #136
    @hibs.net private member allmodcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,053
    If only I could express my views like this.

    https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com...e-nasty-party/

  18. #137
    @hibs.net private member ronaldo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,048
    Quote Originally Posted by allmodcons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If only I could express my views like this.

    https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com...e-nasty-party/
    Great link, and he ticks all the boxes. Tory will always be a four letter word.

  19. #138
    Private Members Prediction League Winner Hibrandenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brandenburg
    Age
    51
    Posts
    8,695
    Quote Originally Posted by allmodcons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If only I could express my views like this.

    https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com...e-nasty-party/
    There's a great video floating around of the Scottish Green's Ross Greer getting stuck in about Ruth Davidson a few days ago. Unfortunately I can only find a Facebook link.

  20. #139
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    7,713
    Quote Originally Posted by ronaldo7 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It looks like you guys have taken Brian Wilson's figures as fact, without checking. Simar, you are normally spot on with your figures, so why would you continue to use those figures when Golden Fleece has put you right on them?
    I did add an IF for that very reason and never suggested I did have the exact amounts as ultimately the point still stands re actions that could have been taken.

    Tis a lesson in listening to anything that auld blowhard has to say though I give ya that.

    Anyway as I said I don't support the bloomin' cap anyway so I'm oot.

  21. #140
    @hibs.net private member ronaldo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,048
    Whilst to Tories in Westminster are introducing the Rape clause, and Ruth's party do as they're told, the Scottish Government introduce welfare benefits which actually benefit the people.

    That's the choices we make. All this with only 15% of the Welfare budget.

    https://t.co/8rjj9Oorh4

    C-ewXDWWAAAKYdJ.jpg
    Last edited by ronaldo7; 28-04-2017 at 08:16 AM.

  22. #141
    @hibs.net private member ronaldo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,048
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I did add an IF for that very reason and never suggested I did have the exact amounts as ultimately the point still stands re actions that could have been taken.

    Tis a lesson in listening to anything that auld blowhard has to say though I give ya that.

    Anyway as I said I don't support the bloomin' cap anyway so I'm oot.
    Aye, suppose if the SNP don't like Anthrax, they can just get rid of it.

  23. #142
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by allmodcons View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes.

    Will they? Perhaps.

    Should they? No, not know.

    Why? Because this is an issue affecting women right across the UK. It should be stopped at Westminster which is why the SNP at Westminster are campaigning for the UK Government to reconsider their position. Why can't any of the more 'caring' Tories at Holyrood support the SNP position at Westminster by pressurising their UK counterparts? Is it, perhaps, because they too find the policy acceptable?
    Ok fair enough. I kinda think that ship has sailed, but go for it. Amd yes, i agree the scotrish tories do that - i donr know why they arent, i suspect its mostly to do with party discipline around elections.

    Its why im not involved in any party, too many moral compromises demanded.

  24. #143
    @hibs.net private member Golden Fleece's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    between a brewery & distillery
    Posts
    11,099
    Quote Originally Posted by ronaldo7 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Aye, suppose if the SNP don't like Anthrax, they can just get rid of it.
    All depend on your taste.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGHs...TUnvNAs-8OkCVA
    #Persevered
    Scotland can be a beacon, within these islands and beyond, for a socially just and sustainable society. Whilst there are many priorities which will require independence, there is also much that can and must be done now by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

  25. #144
    @hibs.net private member ronaldo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    8,048
    Ruth Davidson/Harrison is a Liar.

    https://t.co/6XSPddLlHy

    With third party groups not having been trained or saying they will not get involved. This is the form the woman has to fill in.

    https://t.co/iTdwP8ViF2
    Last edited by ronaldo7; 02-05-2017 at 08:00 PM.

  26. #145
    @hibs.net private member Mantis Toboggan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Philly
    Age
    33
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But who makes the judgement? That's my concern.

    Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
    I don't get this either.
    Also don't understand why this is such an area of focus for the govt. Are there really a load of women claiming to have borne children from rape in order to get benefits? If not then why such a specific 'clampdown'?
    Seems a distraction from more pervasive issues resulting from lack of public infrastructure investment.

  27. #146
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantis Toboggan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't get this either.
    Also don't understand why this is such an area of focus for the govt. Are there really a load of women claiming to have borne children from rape in order to get benefits? If not then why such a specific 'clampdown'?
    Seems a distraction from more pervasive issues resulting from lack of public infrastructure investment.
    It's not a clampdown, though. It's an exemption from the 2-child limit for tax credits.

    Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

  28. #147
    @hibs.net private member Mantis Toboggan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Philly
    Age
    33
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's not a clampdown, though. It's an exemption from the 2-child limit for tax credits.

    Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
    Ok. I have misunderstood​, apologies.
    So this is a new exception?
    If so this whole shebang makes even less sense and looks even more like a distraction

  29. #148
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Mantis Toboggan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ok. I have misunderstood​, apologies.
    So this is a new exception?
    If so this whole shebang makes even less sense and looks even more like a distraction
    It's not a "new exception ". The cap on Child Tax Credit was introduced last month, and is limited to 2 children. The exception for women who have been raped was part of that legislation.

    Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved