Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

i'm thrilled the tories are showing their true colours once more: sexist, mysoginistic dinosours. I was devastated to see so many of the people we thought the Blair years had rendered redundant (Clarke, Hague et al) relishing their new positions of power when the condems got in. To see him exposed for what he really is (what they all are) is making me rub my hands together with glee at the prospect of more tories outing themselves in the months to come.

And has everyone forgotten David Cameron's speech about how multiculturalism has failed?! Come on people, let's not give him such an easy ride. Ken Clarke's not the only one who needs a good kicking.

And yes of course he should resign, so should Cameron.

And why should David Cameron resign exactly?

Because you don't like him? - ha ha ha

There is no blanket sentencing for rape .
Sentences vary from a few years to life.
Therefore courts recognise that rape , like all other crimes of violence , is variable in it's circumstances.
Not to recognise this is to be naive and dogmatic .
We need to live in the real world - Nobody should downplay rape in any form but to not recognise that it is a variable crime does no service to women who have been subjected to the most violent attacks.

Just adding a huge ROFL @ mail reader accusations

"Nobody should downplay rape in any form"

So another person livid with KC's comments then.

Quite right.

Its more common for them to serve absolutely no sentence at all newforest but I guess that;s OK too I mean it wasn't that bad being raped after all. Imagine me being so stupid, naive and pathetic to be traumatised by it.

Indeed SardineQueen. It is outrageous to suggest that people have read a Daily Mail article that they appear to be parroting on a thread which contains a link to the Daily Mail article quite early on.

I'm still wondering why you're not bothering to pay attention to Ken Clarke when he said more than once that rape is a serious crime, with a traumatic effect on its victims.

Clarke was on a famous radio station talking about rape expereinces and sentencing reform. He SHOULD have known about sentencing patterns before opening his mouth. His talk of 'tariff' is utterly misleading, as many convictions for rape are in the standard determinate sentence bracket and have nothing to do with 'tariffs', which is a specific reference to Lifers, and indeterminate sentences. And Vicky D was right - 5 year sentence is about the amount given for a rape with no further aggravating features, such as excessive violence, humiliation etc.

the other stuff about USI, as it was, and a few other mumblings from him, about "seriousness" is a bit of a joke.

It's an indication of how lightly he views this matter of rape. 'This happens to a group of people who I have no connection with and as victims I have little interest in.'

Real shame for a mass of reasons. He has been talking a LOAD of sense about not filling up our prisons with people who DON'T need to be there. Then comes out with a load of bollocks about rape.

Should he go? Not sure. Morally he should but the poss. replacements are just as shudder-worthy.

Yes, there are variations in the degree of violence accompanying what is always a violating act. But it's the words "unwilling woman" that are the clincher. He's suggesting pretty clearly there that in shorter-sentence rapes the woman is somehow willing. That's the bit that I don't think can be explained away as a slip of the tongue. Basically, Clarke let the mask slip, and then tried to make up for it by talking about juveniles.

(And of course, underage non-consensual sex is a massive and underreported issue, it's not as if underage people having sex are all Romeos and Juliets thwarted by an unfair age of majority).

not sure about which mask he has let slip. there could be many of them. He has certainly been lazy in his attitude and his approach. Lazy perhaps because he is a bloke, BUT I wouldn't put it past Ann Widders, a previous incumbent to have come out with something similar. Lazy probably because he doesn't really have an attachment to the issue.
Gordon Brown comes to mind when he was flayed for calling a bigotted woman a biggoted woman, albeit incidentally. Difference is that GB knew what he was talking about.

and for someone much further up saying KC is "left of centre". Err, no. Tony Benn, bless him, is left of centre. KC is a one-nation Tory. A world of differences.

Rohanda if your read the whole thread you will find I wrote a 3 page letter to Ann Widdecombe yesterday because of the views about rape she expressed in her column. If and I do mean if there is ever any reply I will let MN know.

"He's suggesting pretty clearly there that in shorter-sentence rapes the woman is somehow willing."

That would be the consensual yet underage sex that he was openly discussing.

xstitch - no, I'm sorry I haven't read all of the thread - skim read, as by the time I had read all 600 plus messages I would have been dead, and waay behind. I didn't see AW's expressed views, but I am pretty sure they are unpleasant, and other unpleasant things. But Icould be judging her poorly, based on her views on pregnanat women in custody and her generally miserable view of human beings.

Oh they were unpleasant. Enough for me to hand write a 3 page (A4) letter to her. I would like everyone to note I was perfectly polite but suspect she may not be happy with what I wrote. I would not be surprised if I am in some way commented on adversely in some future column.

xstitch - is there an easily-accessed link to her article? If not then ok. I will rely on my imagination. Which I think would be accurate.

noblegiraffe "That would be the consensual yet underage sex that he was openly discussing."

....which is not called rape in the UK. See kungfupannda's posts.

So a complete red herring.

Still, wouldn't expect a lawyer to know that. Or the Justice Secretary.

Unfortunately not, I looked for a link earlier. It was in yesterday's Express yet on the website all the stories form the column are there except that one.

In summary she said that the way to protect yourself from rape was to avoid wearing provocative clothing and any one who disagreed was a 'wilder element of the sisterhood' and had no concern for women's safety.

I took the time to explain that it would not offer protection and claiming so would potentially endanger women by offering a false sense of security, outlined the causes of rape, outline proper sensible safety precautions, told her my story including what I had been wearing. Told her she had offended me by accusing me of having no concern for women. Obviously my letter was a lot longer than that but that's the summary.

Penetration without consent is by definition violent and violating.. I was sexually assaulted once and a friend asked me "was there violence involved".. not sure how beaten up I had to be to get some support..
some women don't fight back because they are so scared, shocked, afraid of being hurt even more.. I can't believe this man..

This is all a storm in a teacup...He didn't mean to say anything offensive, and was trying to explain there are different levels of seriousness which is why an average sentence given for rape is misleading - consenting 15 yr old girl with 17 year old boy is statutory rape was his example. But he did express himself spectaularly badly for a bloke who's allegedly a silk, and quite frankly as a lawyer I don't think he should be in charge of the ministry of justice when he has such a poor grasp on current terminology...

thank you xstitch. nothing of what you say of AW's view is a surprise, is it? Yet she was Home Sec., the queen of justice for a few years.

cordova - I do disagree about the storm in a tea cup comment. He won't last in position for much longer - if teh condem govt had much more talent he wouldn't have lasted beyond today. But they don't. He is a sop to the libs and not much more, but even they will be seeing him as an elderly buffoon now with some good ideas given to him, but a disaster otherwise. He won't be in this office by the end of the year.

Ken Clarke's attempts to "explain" today dug him an even deeper hole......a kid with Google on the computer knows the law better than he does. Time for him to retreat to the post room!

He really must go. However you try and qualify what he actually said, he clearly implied that date rape wasn't that big a deal - in his eyes, the victim isn't even 'unwilling'.

What next? Playdate rape is 'not serious'?