Ken Clarke

Bingo

See, in the context of the interview that’s not the message at all. It also seems at odds what some of his defenders here have been saying.

Something I think everybody has missed – and I don’t think I’ve seen pointed out anywhere – is that sentences are already discounted for guilty pleas (if not as much as proposed) and that the wonderful 5 year average sentence stat already includes that. So Victoria is fundamentally wrong with her suggestion that rapists will be out after 15 months under these new proposals.

Mrs was watching loose women while I’ve been trawing through these 6 pages, the presenter was saying it makes a mockery of the justice system if they are allowed guilty plea bargains….erm all crimes (afaik) get to lea guilty and get a discount. Ester rantson (sp?) enlightened her but pretty stupid of the person chairing the discussion.

The serious scale mentioned before is a useful argument, and I think he meant well but he seems to have used some incredibly stupid words phrases that will have upset people. Whether thats worth his resignation I dunno.
“Rape is rape” “no it’s not” did that actually happen? shakes head

“Rape is rape” “no it’s not” did that actually happen? shakes head

It’s easy to pick phrases like that and make them sound horrendous. I’ve already said that it was a very poor performance by Clarke but if you read the full transcript, the over-riding message is that he is very much on the side of the victim and more interested in increasing the chances of a successful prosecution.

Instead of vilifying someone who is trying to make a change for the good and who used some ill chosen words while being harassed by a very rude interviewer, wouldn’t it make more sense for these ‘outraged’ people to work with him towards a common goal?

Full transcript here

I don’t think its a resignation matter. The grovel he has already done will do

Clarke: Well, I must stop you repeating this total nonsense…assuming you and I are talking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense. Some man has forcefully, with a bit of violence.

So its only rape if violence is used?

. Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it’s rape.

No its not.

Most amusing cartoon in today’s Times.

Ken Clarke, suspended in mid-air, hung by his own tie. Held in his own hand.

Over the top it says:

“Give him enough rape…”

I laughed so much I nearly stopped.

See this line, seems to be quite clearly how he defines serious rape. It implies that these are two criteria. Doesn’t it?

I can’t believe people are still bickering about whether there are degrees of rape!

Is the violent rape of a virgin female or heterosexual man the same as the rape of a drunken victim who could not give consent (because they were blotto), but who had invited the rapist back to their place to carry on with the heavy petting they had been doing in the evening?

I’m reminded of a quote by Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Cooper:

“…those who latch on to an unreasonable notion and thereafter refuse to listen to any further discussion of it have problems that are more amenable to psychiatry than to argument.”

Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it’s rape.

No its not.

Did we ever get a proper reference for that, because I have it on good authority that it is.

Some clarification HERE

“Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it’s rape.

No its not.

Did we ever get a proper reference for that, because I have it on good authority that it is. “

Me ages ago but again Section 9 Sexual Offences act 2003 the offence is sexual activity with a child carries a max of 14 years and is not rape.

This used to be called Unlawful sexual Intercourse. Never has been called statutory rape in this jurisdiction

to clarify ,sex with a child under 13 is rape regardless of consent or mistake as to age.

Even the Guardian isn’t jerking their PC knees as much as some in this thread. Quite a fair summary I think.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/s2KcY_8loL1brs3DWvGDm6g/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/may/19/editorial-kenneth-clarke-rape-sentencing&cat=commentisfree

Good grief, I might have to start buying The Guardian!

Woody, I get what he was trying to say and I see his point seriousness of the incident, aggravated etc but the message anti rape campaigners have been trying to get across (afaik) is “no means no” and “rape is rape” so as the transcript says
“Derbyshire: Rape is rape, with respect.

Clarke: No it’s not…”
That is pretty bloody damning, despite KCs agenda and point that interaction alone is very very badly worded if not downright unforgivable.

I wonder if the same points are going to be made/remade for the rest of time?

Donk

I see your point and agree, as I have already pointed out, that Clarke gave a very poor performance. In his defence, I believe when he said that, he was referring to different degrees of rape and not, as some have tried to infer, that some rape is not serious, a point which he rectified later in the interview.

but the message anti rape campaigners have been trying to get across (afaik) is “no means no” and “rape is rape”

Nobody is disputing the former. The variation in sentences for rape at the moment disproves the latter (unless the PC brigade are just arguing semantics). I wonder if the anti rape campaigners get a good view from up there on that horse.

Why are you ranting about anti- rape campaigners? I assume you are anti -rape? I assume they have a number of rape victims active so I am not sure you will be the best person to talk to them about the semantics or otherwise of being a rape victim.
The offence will always be rape the variation in sentence does not prove rape is not rape. All it proves is that sentencing varies in rape cases. Whether this is the correct thing to do or not is another topic.
Those folk are not on a high horse it is just as your knuckles scrape the ground as you walk along you are left looking up at everyone.

OK here’s an interesting one for which I will no doubt get flamed.

There is reporting of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss Kahn apparently making lewd remarks about a female cabin crew member on a flight, and that he ‘propositioned’ other women at the hotel where the alleged incident happened.

Now it’s funny that this widespread reporting of hearsay which appears to complete the picture of him being a horrible pervert/rapist is seemingly ok – a little bit like defaming the character of a woman in a rape case by making her out to be ‘up for it’ etc?

Shouldn’t it just be about the evidence of the case not trying his general character in the media? I don’t have much sympathy for the guy, I just find it odd.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/strausskahn-more-hotel-staff-propositioned-2287456.html