Ken Clarke

No – I am saying simply what I wrote.

Then we are back to where we started. If there are different sentences then one case is more serious than another. You can pick an alternative comparative adjective if you don’t like ‘serious’.

I listened to the interviews I I don’t think that he said at all that rape wasn’t serious. The interviewer selected the shortest possible sentence to allow her to show how ridiculous 15 months would be for that crime but then wouldn’t allow him to express that some cases of rape could attract a a longer sentence.

To the best of my recollection I have never voted Conservative nor Liberal but I detest the way the voracity of the media is allowing a single slip in wording to dictate political direction

I have just listened to the interview again and I really I don’t know where this “attitudes such as Clarkes” comes from.

He repeatedly said that rape is a serious crime. At no time did he attempt to trivialise some forms of rape but you could almost hear the excitement in the interviewers voice when she thought she had managed to trip him up with a ‘date rape’ question – she hadn’t IMO – he actually said something like “date rape varies enormously and that this is left to the judge to decide the sentence”. Surely that is a reasonable statement?

I think it is a great shame that this has been reported in the way it has, as part of the proposal would have been of benefit to some of those who have been raped.

I also don’t vote Tory and dispair when this discussion is continually reduced to petty party politics. The ‘Old Tory’ moniker is just silly and you should know better.

This thread was always going to end up this way. The usual vociferous PC, right on minority shouting down common sense with silly links, spurious facts and snide political digs. Stop being so bloody outraged and think about the sentiment. Anyone with half an ounce of intelligence can differentiate between the various scenarios that have been put forward.

The chap in question was a little clumsy with his words but the resultant furore is plain daft. Some are jumping on the schoolyard bullying/bickering bandwagon, some are ‘outraged’ and some (most?) think there is some sense in the sentiment behind the words. A lot are just plain scared of being seen to be doing/saying the ‘wrong’ thing as this subject is as explosive as racism, terrorism etc. This in terms of peoples reaction to debate, not the crimes themselves (before any silly billies get themselves overexcited).

God help us all if this is what we have become.

boblo – Old tory as in a tory and old – which he is.

No one in his position should use the language he did and the very fact he did shows his attitude that some rapes are not serious crimes.

its about how his words show his attitudes. He was not “was a little clumsy with his words” His usage of words betrays his attitudes

No petty party politics from me – just despair that still we have these outdated attitudes in our politicians and despair that so many on here can defend it.

TJ, sorry that’s piffle. You felt the need to use the term ‘old Tory’ as a perjoritive and you know that. Do you always preface each reference to someone with a brief factual description? ‘Middle aged Right On liberal TJ said….’ No, don’t be silly….

You and others like you are making capital out of this and sadly, can’t help yourselves. You should have more self control.

You’re jumping on the bovver boots bandwagon to kick one of the few politicians (of any persuasion) that (mostly) talks sense. I’d prefer 10 KC’s in position than any of the slimy, deceitful, me me me dullards that occupy 95% of the roles in modern British politics.

No TJ it is petty, you are just furthering a stereotype.

Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote rather than putting your interpretations on it? You are so desperate to put the boot into anything you see as PC that you fail to actually read what I wrote.

Being Old and Being a tory colours his attitudes. He has previous on this as well.

its a pity ‘cos as I said earlier I do have some time and respect for him. Its a shame on this sort of topic he has the attitudes from teh 50s.

Not you usual standard of argument TJ and you should be ashamed of yourself as you have put your own political prejudices ahead of the facts.

Are you suggesting that consensual sex between a 16 year old male and a 15 year old female is a serious crime?

Woody – that is not rape hence it is not a part of the discussion

I have not put my own political prejudices ahead of the facts – those railing against me have done so in their desire to jump on anything considerd “PC”

The facts are simple – he used a form of words that shows he considers “date rape” not to be a serious crime.

Sorry TJ, sometimes your stuff is not worth bothering with. You’ll now bang on and on about how you’ve been misrepresented and people don’t understand. I’m not playing.

Don’t denegrate others for showing prejudice when you’ve just demonstrated, you haven’t got the self control to stop yourself.

Folowing that with pages of TJ outraged ‘read my lips’ waffle is just a waste of everyones time.

BTW, I’m not anti PC or putting the boot in. I’m trying to understand what was said with an open mind rather than being automatically outraged at the very idea.

<edit> The facts are simple – he was ambushed uby a vociferous group looking to make political capital out of a very serious crime and the usual suspects have lined up to add their ‘me too’ contributions.

Of course you are putting the boot in. To say some forms of rape are not serious is wrong. simple as. Thats what Clarke did.

Try going back and reading my posts with an open mind.

Mrs Toast – Member

“I know as a bloke I’d rather be forced to have sex with my partner than a complete stranger ALTHOUGH clearly both would be rape. The two would certainly have a different impact on me.”

I don’t know about that – if I was in a situation where my partner raped me I’d find it more traumatic, because it’d mean that I didn’t really know the person that I thought I loved and trusted. I’d have that to deal with on top of the rape.

I think Clarke’s betrayed a pretty old school mindset that unless a woman has been threatened with violence and fought back, it’s not ‘proper’ rape.

I’m trying to understand what was said with an open mind rather than being automatically outraged at the very idea.

I have to express this in terms of maths..

Boblo + TJ = 0

As in Boblo’s statement above shows that he thinks in the exact opposite of TJ. TJ is negative boblo..

TJ, I never had you as a troll but it appears that you are which is sad
🙁

The facts are simple – he used a form of words that shows he considers “date rape” not to be a serious crime.

You know that he didn’t say that, you are deliberately choosing to misinterpret to make a political point.

If there are different sentences then one case is more serious than another. You can pick an alternative comparative adjective if you don’t like ‘serious’.

TandemJeremy – Member
Of course you are putting the boot in. To say some forms of rape are not serious is wrong. simple as. Thats what Clarke did.

<sigh> Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Simple words for you: I have not said and do not think that. Stop being silly now.

Reading your earlier posts is a waste of time TJ (unless I come back and say ‘you’re absolutely right’). You’re now reverting to the STW TJ stereotype that people really don’t like.

. To say some forms of rape are not serious is wrong. simple as. Thats what Clarke did.

Did he? From what I recall he said that some forms of rape were less serious than others not that some forms of rape are not serious.

Perhaps you should actually read listen to what I wrote he said rather than putting your interpretations on it?

leffeboy – by referring to “serious rape” that must mean there is non serious rape.. he did not say “more serious” he said “serious”

I am not delibertly misinterpreting anything to make a political point. As I said earlier I respect Clarke in general but on this he shows a mindset that is rooted in the 50s.

I am not trolling – I am hoping that some will open their minds but apparently not.

There are two issues here, conviction rates and length of sentence once convicted.

Nobody can argue that conviction rates are too low (what you do about it is another matter) but there is a debate to be had about length of sentence. That’s what KC was talking about and to assume having that debate means he thinks conviction rates are acceptable or that rape is not a serious crime (when he said just the opposite) is wrong and dangerous.

Unless of course you are an old right winger like TJ who believes in fixed tariff sentencing 😉

Boblo – I did not say you said that – I said Clarke said that.

Really – go back thru what I have posted and read it with an open mind.. nOt what people claim I have posted but what I actually did post.

gonfishin – no he did not. He referred to “serious rape” which must mean there is non serious rape.

by referring to “serious rape” that must mean there is non serious rape

No that’s your interpretation, another interpretaion is that there is less serious e.g. one that does not involve violence for example. That does not make either acceptable or not serious but does allow people to distinguish between the two.

Why is acceptable for you to interpret the words of others but when others interpret your words you get all huffy?

Havent the time to argue but would just like to say I agree with TJ

leffeboy – by referring to “serious rape” that must mean there is non serious rape.. he did not say “more serious” he said “serious”

Only if you choose to interpret it that way. I’m another who would never vote Tory but I despair that this is the level of political debate we are reduced to.

Mrs Toast – Member

Do you mean that you think Clarke holds this view or do you mean that it reminds you of what was once a widely held view?

Kind of a mixture of both – when someone pointed out that rapists normally serve around 5 years so would be out in 15 months with the new guidelines, Clarke defended the short average sentence by saying it was skewed by “date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15 year olds…

“A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman – the tariff is longer than that.”

By saying that, he’s saying that date rape isn’t ‘serious’. He’s also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex, and in a different category to ‘violent’ rape against ‘unwilling’ women.

Which does sound a bit like he’d class John Worboys’ crimes as not being serious, because the women got into the taxi of their own accord and accepted drinks (which were spiked), and were knocked out therefore not needing violence to rape them. I mean, women, accepting drinks from strangers – they’re asking for it aren’t they? And most of them were unconscious and can’t actually remember what happened, so no harm, no foul, eh?

Maybe it’s ‘putting words into his mouth’, but Clarke should really think about the words coming out of his mouth if he doesn’t want them to be so easily misconstrued – if they are being miscontrued. At worst he does belittle ‘date rape’. At best he’s a moron.

If a woman from the feminists against rape had said “in the case of serious rape with violence” no one would have blinked. And if one did analyse it she would not be villified, as the presumption (or the prejudice) is that she is very pro victim and on the “correct” side of this. Because KC said it TJ and others have applied their prejudice and assumed it means something deeper. Just one word is really all this is about, and your interpretation of this one word is fundamentally based on your prejudices.

TJ you need to open your mind.
TJ you need to remember that being wrong is OK, that is how you learn, so maybe take a step back and think why is everyone against me, is it because I am wrong or I am an unrecognised genius? You decide.

Toys – read Mrs Toasts post. Everyone is not against me. several on this thread follow the same sort of line.

My mind is open. Try reading what I wrote carefully. I like ken Clarke but will not let that influence my opinion of what he did here.

Repeatedly quoting someone who agrees with you but is also guilty of putting words into Ken Clarke’s mouth isn’t an argument. Honestly…

No TJ, you’ve performed as expected. Straight into the ‘right on’ corner whilst demonstrating a bit of the prejudice you apparently despise as your inclusivity mantle slipped and you started slinging party political perjoritives around. I’m just surprised at the absence of your best mate to back you up in this piffle….

Quote from a friend of a friend on Facebook (female), ‘someone should date rape Ken Clarke and see if he still thinks it’s not serious’. Nice, would it be considered acceptable to make that comment about a female?

Boblo – I LIKE KEN CLARKE no party political pejorative here. Straw as home secretary said something similar and I castigated him for it.

Please explain how I demonstrated prejudice?

Yeah I read Mrs Toasts post, and it’s a wrong analysis of what he said for exactly the sames reasons as have been outlined by me and others.
KC is motivated to change the law to make things better for the victim, it is completley pointless and destructived to make a massive fuss over a possibly “mis-said” word and divert attention away fron the real debate. It stinks of political opportunism by Milliband et al, and by TJ, really it shoots down any credibilty you may have in this debate becasue you cannot see beyond the triumphalism of “outing” clarke as a dinosaur. Which achieves nothing positive for anyone.

Grum, are you allowed to tell your friend she’s being an idiot?

TandemJeremy – Member
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote rather than putting your interpretations on it?

Yet you spectacularly fail to do that yourself TJ.

TandemJeremy – Member
He referred to “serious rape” which must mean there is non serious rape.

TandemJeremy – Member

Please explain how I demonstrated prejudice?

Read the posts 😀 Might be near the bit about ‘Old Tory’ you know the factual description you always preface a sentence with. ‘Julie. young, red dress’ Y’know, that sort of thing?

Straw as home secretary said something similar and I castigated him for it.

Exactly which shows how you have missed the point of the argument and why the problem is no nearer a solution, because of the petty squabbling over some badly chosen words.

No toys – I am genuinely disappointed ‘cos as I said several times Clarke often makes a lot of sense on judicial matters.

phil – if he says there is a category of “serious rape” there must be a category of “non serious rape” You cannot have a category of “serious” without there being a category of “non serious”

No, there could be a category of EVEN more serious rape as all these crimes are deemed serious?

Grum, are you allowed to tell your friend she’s being an idiot?

It’s a friend of a friend, I don’t know them. Tempting to tell them anyway but I’m not sure I want Facebook drama on this issue.

– if he says there is a category of “serious rape” there must be a category of “non serious rape” You cannot have a category of “serious” without there being a category of “non serious”

Yeah this is just a semantic/logical fail. There could be any number of steps between serious and non serious.

You can write a list that looks like this(in order of severity):

not serious
slightly serious
quite serious
serious
very serious
bloody horrific like being in dantes inferno

or this:

serious
quite serious
very serious
incredibly serious
beyond serious

or this:

Not serious
slightly serious
a bit more serious
very serious
serious

You can see that it is easy to pu the word serious on its own anywhere on the line of seriousness depending on your appraoch, and it demonstrates how pathetic it is to be jumping on every little semantic nuance for postional, ego, or political gain.

if he says there is a category of “serious rape” there must be a category of “non serious rape” You cannot have a category of “serious” without there being a category of “non serious”

EDIT: same as Toys post above