Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

Oh hell no peanut I would be taken to court again so that XH could get 100% custody of dd with no access for me on the grounds I was mentally unstable. I need to try an protect her. It is hard enough trying to do that with my hands metaphorically tied behind my back by the courts.

Actually kungfupanda, I was referring specifically to HCAs defending in a rape trial but agreed - obviously it works either way. Thoroughly agree with you also on the point that the CPS need to be looking at who they employ.

As to the point in question, Ken cocked up the specifics, yes, BUT on top of this he has also (although, perhaps not unsurprisingly!) been wildly misconstrued by some. For the sake of clarity, this does NOT mean I don't think rape is a horrendous crime, because I do - it's a crime you can get life imprisonment for, and rightly.

But this discussion has also touched on rape conviction rates. The fact that they are relatively low is an exceedingly complex issue, but a part of this has to be the quality of the representation in court.

I think that if Mr Clarke were co-erced into having sex with a man he didn't want to have sex with because he was being threatened, he may have a different attitude towards rape. Not all rape includes assault.

xstitch It's crazy. How can the courts screw some people over in so many ways. What about Mind? As a charity, could they offer you a higher level of data protection? Or Women's Aid? You deserve some support, and it's so sad to know you're not getting it.

What DuellingFanjo said.

I may get a flaming for this, but I'll have a go and say it anyway:

There often appears to be an intuitive distinction that people make between stranger rape and rape by a husband, boyfriend or even just a guy who fancies his victim. The former invariably appears to be assumed as being more violent and somehow "worse".

I'm going to have to argue that this is because violent stranger rape has as its perceived victim not only the woman concerned but also the men in her life whose "possessions" have been damaged. Not something that is openly said as such, of course, but it's very much the impression I get from talking to some(!) men.

There, I've said it: The patriarchy is to blame!

Because I have no rights peanut it has been made quite clear to me. From experience I don't think they consider me to be a proper human being.

In answer to your other question I cannot risk being spotted going in anywhere. It would get back to XH as in his words 'I know what you are up to, I won't name names but I have my sources you know'. I no that makes me sound neurotic but when you get phone calls asking why you have the ironing board up, why the bathroom light was on at x o'clock or why was I seen at place y. It does not inspire confidence.

ladythompson what is more shocking is the figures of cases getting as far as court or worse still the number of rapes going unreported.

notadude frighteningly a lot of women seem to hold that view IME.

xstitch you don't sound neurotic at all. I just hate the fact the legal system is screwing you up so much. It's not fair on you, or your DD. :(

For this furore to make any sense we must believe that Ken Clarke thinks some forms of rape are not a serious offence.

He doesn't think that. He didn't say that. However, it is possible to misconstrue his poorly chosen words to imply that.

That is all.

notadude I think you have a point. I know many men who have had a partner who was raped. They feel that their masculinity has been challenged. That they have received some slight themselves. How dare another man harm his wife/girlfirend.

Whereas with inter relationship rape their pals will all collude with him that it can't possibly be rape. That the woman must be bitter and twisted and just making trouble for him. That he has every right to have sex with her. that she would have wanted it. that he couldn't possibly have known she meant no. etc etc

The last time we were in court him and his family claimed I was on strong anti-psychotics. The court took his family's testimony as corroborating evidence. I could produce definitive proof to the contrary ie my medical records and I offered to submit to a tox-screen blood, urine and hair sample but they declined my offer as this respectable family had said so. Please note I am and never have been on anti-psychotics of any kind. People wonder why I don't trust the system as well :).

How on earth do you know what mr clarke thinks? Are you him, or a close confidante of his?

Why is it such a stretch that he thinks what he said? Especially when we know that lots of people do think that?

If he has said that murder is not very serious I would be inclined to believe that he had worded it wrong and didn't mean it like that. But not this.

Xstitch, you are absolutely right, of course - re: cases getting to court and not even being reported. What, in your opinion, would help with this? (You don't have to answer if you don't want to, I know it's a pretty big question).

Sorry that was to bethel

mrsbethel this debate is no longer solely about the views of Kenneth Clarke. It has widened to discuss the views on rape held by society as a whole. Have you read the whole thread.

I am having a strange sense of deja vu with repeating myself.

Xstitch - how did your representative in court deal with this baseless claim from the accused and members of his family Not very robustly, by the sounds of it! Poor, poor you.

For this furore to make any sense we must believe that Ken Clarke thinks some forms of rape are not a serious offence.

Logically speaking, doesn't the KC quote "most serious" (my emphasis!) imply that there are degrees of seriousness and that therefore by definition, some rapes must by definition be not as serious as others?

Only one "by definition" intended, sorry!

Is there anyway you could appeal against all of this, xstitch? I know you've mentioned how much of a manipulative bastard twat nasty piece of work your ex is, but was anything said about if you wanted to appeal, and what would happen if you lost the appeal?

Thanks xstitch you phrase it so much better:

There are no degrees of rape, it is just sometimes accompanied by other crimes

I can try lady unfortunately it is a massive uphill struggle. The way women are treated by the system needs to be more sensitive the problem is so many don't even enter the system.

The later is mainly due to the views held in society the culture we live in where it is considered by too many (though not all) people that the woman must be in some way to blame that she must have been asking for it. The myth that dressing conservatively protects you from rape so people fear the question what were you wearing. The myth that sex is solely about sexual desire. The myth that it isn't traumatic if you knew the rapist. It is all these views that contribute to a woman's fear of coming forward. For this to change the first step is for women to speak out and dispell these myths which is why I am determined not to shut up, so I can do my bit. For victims to know that they an get help and support and for that help and support to be freely available.

System wise there needs to be more specially trained officers and these officers need to be used when interviewing victims. On top of the specialist training officers need at least a general training on the issue so that the victim doesn't hear 2 officers joking about the length of her skirt (yes I do know of this happening). Anonymity for both victim and accused until after the trial. Women need to know they are not going to be shafted by the courts, please see my comments in my court experiences (I know not a rape trial but still). For the judiciary to be educated more on rape. I don't mean the legal aspects (I would hope they know that) but the social, psychological and long term affects of rape so that they can try and avoid misinformed, insulting comments.

For politicians to think before they open their mouths or put pen to paper. I don't just mean Kenneth Clarke but in the last week alone there has been Nadine Dorries also. I wrote to Ann Widdecombe yesterday to outline why I though the advice on avoiding rape that she gave in her column were dangerous. They all mange to perpetuate rape myths and make it more difficult for people to report.

After witnessing people read so many posts on here and yet still feel the need to claim its not that bad I fear we will never win.

Not at all lady he said not a word. Didn't back me up on any single insult they levelled at me (they were in double figures) too much to go into on here. Told me to keep quiet and take it or it would make me look bad. I did all teh background research and got research papers to back me up against claims I knew they were going to make but he left them in his office and refused to submit them as it 'looked like overkill'

Thank you for that xstitch I think what you have to say is very interesting. I had heard the idiotic thigns Nadine Dorries said but hadn't seen what Ann Widdecombe had said, will look it out.

Now, this is obviously just a sweeping generalisation and it would be interesting to see how it stood up to some hardcore research, but most barristers will tell you that women on a average jury are less likely to convict someone accused of rape than men (ie, the women tend to have less sympathy for the accuser).

In regards to the reduced sentence.

Yes, I agree with this idea.

So what we do is we treble the current sentences given out and then if the f**kers admit to what they've done we give them a new "reduced" sentence.

See, simples.

Alternatively we could get rid of their problem area.

he said what a lot of people think and that is what is shocking. when i was 15 i went on my first holiday abroad and drank far too much. it was the first time we had been allowed out on our own and we went to clubs and basically had all the attention of the boys who plied us with more alcohol. completely drunk we were led to the beach by a 21 year and a 25 year old man...very impressed we were at having pulled older men. We all started fooling around...now id barely kissed a man before, things started to get out of hand so i said no i dont want to do anything without a condom, he shouted over to his mate...'have you got a condom' but he said no he hadnt. we carried on a bit and i knew he was pressing against me, then suddenly he flipped me over and threw me face down onto the sand and that was that - he was inside me...i thrashed about to get him off me and had a mouthful of sand and was spluttering get off me whcih he did. i got up and said i told you i didnt want to and he laughed and said whats the problem, i only penetrated you...that was how i lost my virginity. i was so ashamed. i battled for years whether it was rape or not and blamed myself for it, at 15 years old i had the terror of going to the doctors and getting a hiv test done. my mum found out and because i couldnt admit what had happened she from that moment on assumed i was a slut that was sleeping around. it changed my whole life but eventually i accepted it and realised it wasnt my fault. A few years ago i had an altercation with a best friend (stupid and fuelled by alcohol) and it was at that point that she scorned at me that she didnt believe that i was raped and had probbaly had made it up...and she is supposedly very feminist too...it was the biggest kick in the teeth, after spending years doubting myself as it was she confirmed that if i had told anyone about it back then then they wouldnt have believed me anyway...if she didnt who else would? he is an idiot for saying something so stupid and irresponsible, its a statement i can see being repeated by raping arseholes. Being raped isnt really about the physical thing of having a penis put inside you, its what happens afterwards that is what affects you, and even though you are the wronged party, you are always going to have a stigma against you by somebody.