Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

773 replies

NotFromConcentrate · 18/05/2011 12:07

AIBU to think it's time he went?

OP posts:
Octaviapink · 18/05/2011 21:24

Sorry, haven't read every message, but if you listen to the interview Ken Clarke didn't discuss date rape, his position was that statutory rape shouldn't be treated the same way as serious adult rape. In which he is entirely and commonsensically correct.

noblegiraffe · 18/05/2011 21:26

Where on earth did you get that from, Edam?

dittany · 18/05/2011 21:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GrimmaTheNome · 18/05/2011 21:31

That was what I inferred from what he was (totally cackhandedly) saying.

SeymoreButts · 18/05/2011 21:38

"if you listen to the interview" Grin

so that's where we've been going wrong.

GrimmaTheNome · 18/05/2011 21:40

But not sure it comes under 'rape', it seems to be explicitly covered under 'child sex offenses' here

AyeRobot · 18/05/2011 21:41

I know this has been said by kungfupanda and others time and time again, but just for clarity:

Over 13 and under 16 and it is consensual sex, the offence is "sexual activity with a child". If there is no consent, then it is rape. Under 13 - consent is off the legal table as in it doesn't matter whether a girl consents or not, it is still rape.

We do not have the term "statutory rape" in this country, although that is what the "Under 13" element is, in effect. And if two people in the 13-16 age bracket have consensual sex, the offence is "sexual activity with a child" and is rarely prosecuted. It's all here

As for the statistics, they are a little harder to track down. The quarterly stats on recorded crime from the Home Office are split into "Most serious sexual crime" and "Other sexual offences".

misty75 · 18/05/2011 21:55

he is factually incorrect and so not equipped to comment on this. sex with an girl under 16 is not automatically classed as rape in uk; the term statutory rape only exists in american law. of course it is still a crime but it is called unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. there is the same law about underage boys of course. i'm not on about whether it is as bad morally, just pointing out that Clarke seems to have no idea about the law that he is on about.

misty75 · 18/05/2011 21:57

sorry i should have read whole thread, grimma, dittany and ayerobot have said this already, xpost!

AyeRobot · 18/05/2011 22:04

S'ok, misty, I am repeating myself! And I will keep doing so as long as people refer to willing sex with those aged 13, 14 or 15 as rape. And statutory rape at that.

The crime of rape is not complicated. Why do some people want to make it so?

Twickers100 · 18/05/2011 22:09

He made a variety of comments which underline more clearly than any TV drama why it is do difficult for rape victims to get the support and justice they deserve.

I wonder if he thinks the are different degrees of GBH, i.e. if someone you know kicks the out of you that's a lesser offence than if a stranger does. (even if the resulting injuries are the same)

He should definately loss his job and we will know the PM's views of rape if he doesn't.

Samjam10 · 18/05/2011 22:14

Right. I haven't read the whole thread. But to answer the OP, "date rape" destroys your life in some ways, and always presents itself back to you after you have experienced it in your subsequent relationships. If Ken Clarke really made this differentiation, he might want to try walking in someone else's shoes for a bit.

Thank goodness for all those good men who have helped their often un - listened - to, or silent partners, get over it.

TandB · 18/05/2011 22:20

I'm back after a 100 mile drive! And I see Ayerobot is doing a stirling job on sorting out the muddle KC has created but hey, let's say it again....

Consensual sex with a teenager is not rape - it is sexual activity with a child.

Non-consensual sex with a teenager is rape.

Consensual or non-consensual sex with an under-13 year-old is rape - they cannot legally consent.

There is no such thing as statutory rape in the UK - this is a US concept although it is often used as shorthand.

For me, the bottom line is this - whether or not KC intended to indicate that date rape is less serious than "real" rape or whether he was referring to "statutory rape", he has created such a massive mess of offence and confusion that he needs to be apologising left, right and centre and clarifying exactly what it is that he is trying to say.

If he has been misunderstood then that is his own bloody fault for saying that rape sentencing statistics are skewed by the inclusion of the consensual under age sex offences - I can't possibly imagine that this is the case, given that IT ISN'T RAPE!

TandB · 18/05/2011 22:23

Twickers100 Wed 18-May-11 22:09:42
I wonder if he thinks the are different degrees of GBH, i.e. if someone you know kicks the out of you that's a lesser offence than if a stranger does. (even if the resulting injuries are the same)

That is actually a really interesting analogy, Twickers - until not so long ago, people DID think that assault was less serious if your husband or partner did it. Domestics were seen in the same way that date rape appears to be seen now. The change in attitudes and improvement in conviction rates for DV cases was actually quite swift which gives some hope that the same might one day happen in rape cases.

FrameyMcFrame · 18/05/2011 22:23

all rape is violence.

xstitch · 18/05/2011 22:27

It is framey but sadly many people don't see it that way to them it is about sex. Which it isn't but doesn't stop them thinking it. When the lawmakers reinforce this view it does not inspire confidence.

AyeRobot · 18/05/2011 22:30

Thanks kungfupanda.

I must just say that my reference to a "girl" in my previous explanatory posts was simply because I copied that from a post I made on a thread about a case involving 2 girls. In this context, I should have changed it to "child".

Interesting link about the detail of recording of crime from the Home Office It gives example scenarios and their corresponding crime, so careful if you might be triggered. I should email it to KC, actually.

Suespeaking · 18/05/2011 22:45

Personally I think it's absurd to insist that every rape is exactly the same degree of seriousness. All Ken Clarke was saying is that some rapes are even worse than others. I agree. To see no difference between, say, a group of soldiers brutally raping captive girls and a drunken attempt to date rape is just ridiculous.
Ken Clark could have put it much better, but the manufactured outrage is not advancing us a great deal.
Now back to the screaming and cursing.

WhatWillSantaBring · 18/05/2011 22:46

Hmmm, as the victim of non-violent date-rape, I have to say that I agree that there can, in some circumstances, be a difference in degrees. The law is " any penetration", no matter how long it lasts, whether he, ahem, finishes, or how far it goes in. Although what happened to me was technically rape, he did withdraw and stop and there was no violence at all. I was very drunk and too naive at the time to realise where things were leading, so although I said no, I said it very late, and there was no force, IYSWIM. I cannot sit here and claim to understand what a girl who has been violently assaulted and forced has been through, because, thank god, my experience, although bad, was not in the same league.

The comparison with GBH is interesting, because s20 GBH covers both the man that throws a windmill style punch and cuts the other man's eye, and the man who breaks someones arm and nose and skull by slamming them against the wall. Technically the same offence, but different degrees of seriousness.

However, KC has totally ballsed up by using a crap choice of language and sounding like an incoherent fool. I think he was trying to talk about improving conviction rates!

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar · 18/05/2011 22:49

KC is being framed by the Torygraph et al

Yellowstone · 18/05/2011 22:58

Suespeaking I haven't read the thread, I've just listened to the news: completely agree. Violent rape by a stranger should never be compared in seriousness with the rape of a woman by a man she has previously dated/ slept with. To compare the two situations is absurd. As one moves in from the two extremes the situation becomes increasingly blurred, but it does a very great disservice to women attacked violently by a stranger to say 'rape is rape'. I can't see that Ken Clarke has said anything particularly wrong, he didn't say 'date rape' was OK.

IKeepThemInACage · 18/05/2011 23:02

Yellowstone. Have you been raped?

Once by a man you have dated and once by a stranger?

No?

Well then you have absolutely no authority to make that statement.

Rape is rape.

IKeepThemInACage · 18/05/2011 23:03

The very act of being raped, whether by someone you know or a stranger is violent.

There may be additional violence, yes.

DuelingFanjo · 18/05/2011 23:12

A drunken attempt to date rape?

that's ok is it? which bit, the drunken bit, the 'attempt' bit, the 'date' bit? ffs!

hairylights · 18/05/2011 23:12

For those talking about "non violent" rape earlier in the thread. The act of forcing a penis into a womans vagina, when the woman doesn't want it there IS an extremely violent act.

Battery is an additional offence.