MP challenges child tax credit plan that could require women to prove rape

Government rebuked over ‘distasteful’ third child tax credits proposal in July budget

The government has been challenged to justify an “incredibly distasteful” proposal in Wednesday’s budget which would require a woman who had a third child as the result of rape to justify her position in order to avoid losing tax credits.

The plans to restrict child tax credits to two children for new claimants from 2017 incorporate a number of exemptions, including multiple births, and set out that “the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as a result of rape or other exceptional circumstances”.

Alison Thewliss, SNP MP for Glasgow Central, who first drew attention to the clause on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, described what would inevitably result in a woman having to prove to a DWP official that she had been raped as appalling.

“We think the policy on limiting tax credits is appalling anyway, and tantamount to social engineering, but putting a woman who has been raped – and her child – in that position is shocking.”

Thewliss said that the policy had clearly not been thought through. She said: “How are you going to prove it? What if there is no conviction [for the rape] as happens in a lot of cases? There are so many unanswered questions.

“What happens if it becomes known in the local community that a woman is receiving tax credits for a third child? What assumptions will be made about that woman and her children? It’s a complete abuse of her privacy.”

In Thursday’s business questions in the Commons, Kirsten Oswald, SNP MP for East Renfrewshire, called on the government to allow time for a debate on the “incredibly distasteful” proposal.

This was dismissed by Chris Grayling, the leader of the house, who said George Osborne had already made clear it would be “designed in a way to handle difficult cases in the most sensitive possible way”.

Lisa Longstaff of the campaigners Women Against Rape described the proposal as “disgusting”. She said: “Asking women to disclose very difficult information and expecting them to be able to prove it – in what is frankly a very hostile environment when the DWP is trying to take your money away – will have appalling consequences.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/government-third-child-tax-credits-proposal-budget-rape

And who trusts the DWP to handle is with sensitivity? Absolutely no-one with any sense, and the fact that the women would actually have to disclose it is appalling. How low are we getting, can we actually get any lower?

That is horrible!!! It's paramount to them reading your private diary and sharing it round the office!

It's a stupid law anyway. It's unfair too.

Ps I have to say though, and it's a different topic, I couldn't have a child that was the product of a rape....

No child unless in poverty should be getting child credit.
If people tdecide to have children it is their responsibility finncially.
Its not the governements responsibility for them to pay to raise children but those who decide to have children.
Again this is what is wrong with society today, people thinking they should be paid to raise their own children.

I'm not anti abortion in any way, it's up to the woman to decide in my book, but I know there is no way I would ever have had one, just couldn't bear the thought of it for myself. But who knows, there might have been circumstances like that when I would have considered it.

Oh here we go, Didge's mum and dad lived on 2p a week and managed to feed and clother 500 children.

Cuchulain wrote:No child unless in poverty should be getting child credit.
If people tdecide to have children it is their responsibility finncially.
Its not the governements responsibility for them to pay to raise children but those who decide to have children.
Again this is what is wrong with society today, people thinking they should be paid to raise their own children.

What about if the parents are both working and then one of them loses their job?
Then they would deserve child tax credits yes? To help make up the money?

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:No child unless in poverty should be getting child credit.
If people tdecide to have children it is their responsibility finncially.
Its not the governements responsibility for them to pay to raise children but those who decide to have children.
Again this is what is wrong with society today, people thinking they should be paid to raise their own children.

What about if the parents are both working and then one of them loses their job?
Then they would deserve child tax credits yes? To help make up the money?

This is what is concerning you is it not, that by 2017, you will have to work again Eddie or lose your universal credit?
What nobody is discussing here is what salary is manageable to raise children on, not whether two parents need to work to raise a child or even warrant child benefit. Again only if they are below a certain wage should it warrant child support.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:No child unless in poverty should be getting child credit.
If people tdecide to have children it is their responsibility finncially.
Its not the governements responsibility for them to pay to raise children but those who decide to have children.
Again this is what is wrong with society today, people thinking they should be paid to raise their own children.

What about if the parents are both working and then one of them loses their job?
Then they would deserve child tax credits yes? To help make up the money?

This is what is concerning you is it not, that by 2017, you will have to work again Eddie or lose your universal credit?
What nobody is discussing here is what salary is manageable to raise children on, not whether two parents need to work to raise a child or even warrant child benefit. Again only if they are below a certain wage should it warrant child support.

Hahahahahaha we don't get any credits! None whatsoever. I don't have to go to work if I don't want to??
Assumptions Didge. I'm very surprised at you being so sloppy when I've already said loads of times that we don't get any tax credit - we aren't entitled to them.


So, if two people are working and one lost their job, you don't think that child tax credits should be awarded to them?

Ps I only have two children do the third child tax thing doesn't affect me anyway
But it's still unfair

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

This is what is concerning you is it not, that by 2017, you will have to work again Eddie or lose your universal credit?
What nobody is discussing here is what salary is manageable to raise children on, not whether two parents need to work to raise a child or even warrant child benefit. Again only if they are below a certain wage should it warrant child support.

Hahahahahaha we don't get any credits! None whatsoever. I don't have to go to work if I don't want to??
Assumptions Didge. I'm very surprised at you being so sloppy when I've already said loads of times that we don't get any tax credit - we aren't entitled to them.


So, if two people are working  and one lost their job, you don't think that child tax credits should be awarded to them?

Buullllllllshit, as what else do you have to worry about Eddie then with the changes coming ion 2017.
get off your arse and get a job

I do not think people should have any child benefit unless in poverty.

I swear on the lives of everyone I love we don't qualify for any tax credits whatsover.

My other half earns above the threshold whereby you can claim tax credits.

Why would I care about the changes? Because we are debating them and I think they're unfair.

Does something have to affect me personally for me to care?

eddie wrote:I swear on the lives of everyone I love we don't qualify for any tax credits whatsover.

My other half earns above the threshold whereby you can claim tax credits.

Why would I care about the changes? Because we are debating them and I think they're unfair.

Does something have to affect me personally for me to care?

That is not what you said yesterday.

You said yesterday this:

Part of that budget is dodgy for us. I won't say on here but it's got me worried.

You can swear on as many lives as you like Eddie

Like I say I have no doubt you get tax credits.

So what if you do, I just think personally people should pay for rasing children if they decide to have a family.
Only on what is classed as the poverty level in this country should people receive benefits.

eddie wrote:I swear on the lives of everyone I love we don't qualify for any tax credits whatsover.

My other half earns above the threshold whereby you can claim tax credits.

Why would I care about the changes? Because we are debating them and I think they're unfair.

Does something have to affect me personally for me to care?

Just for the record Eddie, I do not doubt you do not pay tax credits.
I had an ulteria motive here to show your double standards.

You said to me:

No Didge, if someone said I don't believe you have two children Eddie I'd say "So what?"

I was stating you were lying, basically the same and you never in this instance said "so what"

In fact you had to swear on the lives of those you loved, showing it does matter to you that you are telling the truth.

Pease do not try and pull the woll over my eyes Eddie, as seen you clearly like any person do not like people stating you are a liar, as you clearly defended against me claiming you were lying. Ay no point did you say "so what", if I do not believe you

Now I hope you have a wonderful weekend and now you will understand the fact why I would rather Ben judge on matters, as clearly there is a conflict of interest when you are moderating in regards to me.

Assumption again Didge

I wasn't referring to that part of the budget!

Use your brain!
I only have two kids anyway!!! So even if I was referring to the tax credits it still wouldn't affect me!!

You absolute plonker!!!

Again I swear on the lives of everyone I love we don't get tax credits and that wasn't what I was referring to

You're not clever Didge, just a lot of c&p and no real logic at all

You plonker :-)))

eddie wrote:Assumption again Didge

I wasn't referring to that part of the budget!

Use your brain!
I only have two kids anyway!!! So even if I was referring to the tax credits it still wouldn't affect me!!

You absolute plonker!!!

I know you were not refering to that part of the budget and again you further prove my point in how toy are reacting to me not believing in you.

See my previous post

You prove my point it does bother you when somebody does not believe you.

Thank you eddie for proving my point that you did the opposite if what you claim you would do, to someone not believing you. To the point you now use insults..

So again think before you post even after what you posted this moring, you clearly do not like people calling you a liar.
I do not think you are lying about your children, but you were being dishonest when you said you would say "so what" to be accused of lying.

All the best, but when moderating stop being biased against me and I will not have to show up your double standards as I did here.

I proved you wrong and now you're just waffling about some 'thing you had to go around the houses to prove'

Honestly Didge,
You're a first class plonker!

I'm so glad that just happened

eddie wrote:I proved you wrong and now you're just waffling about some 'thing you had to go around the houses to prove'

Honestly Didge,
You're a first class plonker!

I'm so glad that just happened

That is okay Eddie.
Like I say, when ytou state something be sure to actualy be like you claim you would be lol.
You walked into that like a moth to a flame lol
As to what you think of me further proves your inability to be impartial, hence the conflict of interest.
You cannot claim you proved me wrong on something I set up where I admitted to this before you answered lol

Never mind Eddie,

I hope you learnt a lesson here

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:I swear on the lives of everyone I love we don't qualify for any tax credits whatsover.

My other half earns above the threshold whereby you can claim tax credits.

Why would I care about the changes? Because we are debating them and I think they're unfair.

Does something have to affect me personally for me to care?

Just for the record Eddie, I do not doubt you do not pay tax credits.
I had an ulteria motive here to show your double standards.

You said to me:

No Didge, if someone said I don't believe you have two children Eddie I'd say "So what?"

I was stating you were lying, basically the same and you never in this instance said "so what"

In fact you had to swear on the lives of those you loved, showing it does matter to you that you are telling the truth.

Pease do not try and pull the woll over my eyes Eddie, as seen you clearly like any person do not like people stating you are a liar, as you clearly defended against me claiming you were lying. Ay no point did you say "so what", if I do not believe you

Now I hope you have a wonderful weekend and now you will understand the fact why I would rather Ben judge on matters, as clearly there is a conflict of interest when you are moderating in regards to me.

Bumped again for Eddie lol


Have a good one Eddie and all can see that when challenged did you ever turn around and say "so what"?

Nope





That is what you call a mastyer class in catching someone out.

Actually, you didn't query the number of children she had, and that's what she said she wouldn't react to.

sassy wrote:Actually, you didn't query the number of children she had, and that's what she said she wouldn't react to.

This is why you do not understand methodology Sassy.
In both cases the person is being accused of lying.

Like I say, when people make poor claims its very easy for me to catch them out.

It shows their thinking is two dimentional.

Yawn.   Never mind Didge, golf calls soon and you can cheer up.

Hope you don't play God on the golf course.

sassy wrote:Yawn.   Never mind Didge, golf calls soon and you can cheer up.

I think you need to cheer someone else up.....




Have a wonderful day

I read all these posts about how much people get for their children and how they wont be able to manage. When I got married and children came along we got nothing for them, we had to pay all the bills our selves. Then we thought we were well of when we got 7/6 a week for the first child only.

Yep Nicko, but I also remember that our mortgage was only £20 a month, we earned £250 a month between us, the kids went to school round the corner so no travelling, they didn't have to wear school uniform, my housekeeping was £5 -£7 a week, the tv licence was peanuts, as was the electric and we had an open fire that cost very little, the percentage of bills to earnings was very much lower.

It's no good living in the past, life and bills are very different, for example if you live in Colchester and work in London, you have to find £5,880 just to get there (thats without bus fare at either end).

Anyway, could we get back to the fact this requires women to prove that they have been raped!

What's to stop women having a third child And claiming it was as result of a rape when it wasn't, just to blag The extra money...!?



And before you try to claim that nobody would do it... yes some would!!!

sassy wrote:Actually, you didn't query the number of children she had, and that's what she said she wouldn't react to.

Hahahah exactly

He is now pretending to do what he always does "Erm no no! What I enact was.....blah blah blah!"

Waffle schmaffle.


ANYWAY! Back on topic

Having to prove you're raped is like reliving the nightmare all over agin!
Disgusting

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:Actually, you didn't query the number of children she had, and that's what she said she wouldn't react to.

Hahahah exactly

He is now pretending to do what he always does "Erm no no! What I enact was.....blah blah blah!"

Waffle schmaffle.


ANYWAY! Back on topic

Having to prove you're raped is like reliving the nightmare all over agin!
Disgusting

Oh Eddie, you know you got caught out again, with how you reacted to someone questioning you're integrity, even more so by the fact you are still trying to get out of how you reacted. Its as plain as day to see, where you said to me you would say "so what" to someone claiming you were a liar about the number of children you had. The central point in both is the lying. If you reacted to the claim to lying here, you would react the same to a claim of lying to the number of daughters you had. Ad  on top of this you proclaim you never lie and react as seen to when this is challenged proves you would not say "so what". Learn methodology hun. It matters not the point was to just point out how you clearly are not impartial in regards to me, you are biased against. Of which all I ask is you ask Ben about something you are unhappy on the board with if it involves me, to allow Ben to decide impartially. That also saves you from having me then claim you were being biased, as Ben has made the decision. That saves you any aggravation, does it not?


Anyhow to the point in question, I agree with what you say it would be awful for a rape victim to have to relive such an event by being asked about their third child. There are two problem with this. One this should be recorded as a crime, should it not? Unless they have not reported, it should be on record and there would be no need to prove anything would there? If they have not reported, then how can they prove they have been raped to claim the allowance through this exception. Remember this is an exception to allow a third child receive benefits if they have been raped. Its there to actually benefit the victim.  It is the fact they are a victim, that entitles them to this exception. It thus stands in their benefit that they do receive the extra benefit. To apply this exception, there has to be a means of how to know who has been a victim. As bad as this is for them to state they have and then have to relive this again, it is required so they can claim extra. Without knowing who has,will mean none would benefit from this exception.

Do you see my point. They deserve this exception and need to have it when the number of children is reduced to two. I cannot see any other way around this, unless  the whole system of just two kids receiving benefit is scraped. Its likely the new system will be introduced, so its in their benefit to come forward. As I say I cannot see any other round unless the data base is share with the crime database, which with bring many legal issue's. The problem that will really not help is where someone has been to scared to come forward and report the crime of rape. They are never going to be able to prove they have been. In some ways this new system may create more problems than the intention to make easier and fairer.

Stick to history. Your psycho-analysis is tits-up

I just like to prove you wrong and all this waffle you've come out with after is just......waffle.

Tee hee naughty eds! But it has made me laugh!

eddie wrote:Stick to history. Your psycho-analysis is tits-up

I just like to prove you wrong and all this waffle you've come out with after is just......waffle.

Tee hee naughty eds! But it has made me laugh!

Its not analysis. Its methods, that people use, how they react.

Oh well you are not interested in the debate or saving yourself any unnecessary hassle to jump in on things with me. Shame really I thought that would be a mutual solution, if it was left for Ben to resolve

Glad you think you can prove me wrong, you did once today where I jumped in the other thread of the link you sent to your husband. Here though you got caught very short lol

Never mind, hope you move on and respond to the points I made about the thread.