Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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:
Callisto · 18/05/2011 12:37

Sorry, X-posting here. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

KatieMiddleton · 18/05/2011 12:38

Jeez. How depressing Sad

I often wonder how such people know these bollox facts. Has Mr Clarke experienced both and of the two one was better?? Conducted a survey of victims and measured their emotional pain and found differences??

I mean it's just such a ludicrous statement to make.

Camerondiazepam · 18/05/2011 12:38

But as annapolly said on the other thread, violent rape - rape plus GBH or similar, "non-violent" rape is still rape. Underage sex is a different thing but what is an "acceptable" age difference for it to be rape /paedophilia or consensual sex?

Camerondiazepam · 18/05/2011 12:38

That was supposed to be violent rape = rape plus GBH or similar, doesn't make sense otherwise, sorry.

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 18/05/2011 12:39

I don't believe there are degrees of rape. Sex without a woman's consent equals rape. It's not less upsetting because you know your attacker or he bought you dinner first.

Underage sex is a different issue.

AbsDuCroissant · 18/05/2011 12:40

Yip, rape is defined (per the Sexual offences Act 2003, which maybe Clarke should have a quick look at) as:
intentionally penetrating the vagina, anus or mouth of a person with [a] penis
B [the victim] does not consent and
A [the perpetrator] does not reasonably believe that B consents

CogitoErgoSometimes · 18/05/2011 12:40

Rape is a serious offence every time but it can be made more serious with the addition of violence, bodily harm and other factors. Sentencing has to reflect that, surely? Only murder carries one mandatory sentence and, even there, there are calls to introduce distinctions.

SardineQueen · 18/05/2011 12:41

yanbu will link some of the things he said in a mo

What he has said is utterly outrageous

pickyourbrain · 18/05/2011 12:41

Exactly! Rape is rape and should carry it's own (looooong) sentence. Other violent damage (black eyes, broken limbs, split lips) should carry a further sentence.

wigglesrock · 18/05/2011 12:43

I have an idea, instead of letting men plead guilty and therefore reduce their sentence to save women having to go to trial and having to face cross examination re their sexual behaviour, how about we stop letting defence team from badgering and harrassing women who do take the stand.

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 18/05/2011 12:43

Agreed, pick. A physically violent rape should see the attacker charged with rape AND GBH/attempted murder etc.

Original poster
NotFromConcentrate · 18/05/2011 12:43

When does, for example, restraining a women by holding her arms or pulling her hair become violent to warrant being GBH though Cogito ?

I am obviously looking at this from a biased point of view, and I apologise for that, but where is the line between just violent enough to have sex with a woman against her will, and violent enough to be considered 'properly' violent?

OP posts:
otchayaniye · 18/05/2011 12:44

This is just a thought. I think there is a difference between violent rape/stranger rape/non violent rape. A 'difference' in circumstance, but not a difference in 'degree', if you see what I mean. And I wouldn't like to see different sentencing applied to distinguish.

I am speaking as someone who was violently raped by a stranger while studying abroad. For me, thinking about being raped by a partner strikes me as worse, as the effects are entrenched into your day to day life more, and the abuse of trust is an issue.

I never had to see my rapist again. The corporeal injuries healed long ago.

Am prepared to be told I'm talking bollocks.

SardineQueen · 18/05/2011 12:45

SardineQueen Wed 18-May-11 12:28:08
BBC contains more of what he said and it is staggering

"Again pressed on the fact rapists could be out in 15 months: "I must stop you repeating this total nonsense that - assuming you and I are talking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense, some man has forcefully with a bit of violence..."

When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire interrupted to say "Rape is rape, with respect" Mr Clarke replied: "No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15 year old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape. Because she is under age, she can't consent... What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

The context of this was that Mr Clarke was saying that the 5yo average tariff was skewed. With people who had committed a "proper rape" getting much longer, and the average was watered down by lots of people getting shorter terms for "not really rape rape".

What is he on? The figures I am sure will show that the men who are in prison for rape are there for crimes that even mr clarke would recognise as rape. The idea that droves of 18 yo are being sent to prison for consensual sex with 15yo and this is skewing the stats is just so incredible I can't believe he said it.

AlpinePony · 18/05/2011 12:45

I'm sorry if this offends but imo there is a difference.

I have been raped twice by men I knew.

As horrible as it was, I was not dragged from an alleyway by a stranger with a knife at my neck.

I know the difference and I feel "lucky" to have only experienced the former and not the latter.

Mumanator · 18/05/2011 12:45

OP you have misrepresented this! What he was doing - if you really listened - was trying to differentiated 'rape with violence' from consensual teenage underage sex!! Get your facts straight!

AbsDuCroissant · 18/05/2011 12:45

I only did GDL level of Criminal law, but seriously, he should know that separate offences are treated separately. So, if say someone is beaten up and then raped, they should be charged with battery, assault, GBH, sexual assault etc. etc. so that the perpetrator is charged for every offence that they commit, and all of this would be taken into account when it came to sentencing.
Surely the justice secretary would know this?

TheDerailer · 18/05/2011 12:46

Agree with both pick and wiggles.

It is staggering

earthworm · 18/05/2011 12:46

Link to the BBC here

pointissima · 18/05/2011 12:46

If this was the distinction he was making, it is outrageous.

In the bit I saw, however, I think he was trying to distinguish between statutory rape (both parties willing but one technically unable to consent because underage) and all other sorts of rape, by way of explaining why the average sentence seems so short (stats include stat rape).

otchayaniye · 18/05/2011 12:47

"I have been raped twice by men I knew.

As horrible as it was, I was not dragged from an alleyway by a stranger with a knife at my neck.

I know the difference and I feel "lucky" to have only experienced the former and not the latter."

I am really sorry. But it's interesting, don't you think, that I suffered the latter, and think your situation would have been worse for me to deal with.

I agree that rape carries one sentence and the violent attack is a GBH or whatever on top.

Original poster
NotFromConcentrate · 18/05/2011 12:47

Mumanator he used date rape in the same category as underage sex, both of which, IMO, he differetiated from "serious rape".

OP posts:
LifeIsButtercream · 18/05/2011 12:47

I kinda almost see how someone with a very literal mind could try to differentiate between date-rape and someone who pounces on people in dark alleyways BUT that does not make rape any less serious or horrific. Rape is rape, regardless of the circumstances, and should always be treated as a serious offence.

It's actually insulting that he could even attempt to imply that date-rape is any less serious.

MarioandLuigi · 18/05/2011 12:48

There have been calls for him to go.

I hope he does.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 18/05/2011 12:49

I think, like any other kind of personal violation offence, it has to be judged individually. Restraint, physical harm, use of weapons, kidnap, imprisonment, torture... each case is going to be different. As I said initially, it's a very serious crime to start with, but it is common for most crimes, with the exception of murder, to have degrees of severity attached for sentencing purposes.