Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

""And a serious rape where, you know, violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff's much longer than that. "

Because of course rape without physical violence doesn't really count, obviously sticking a penis in a vagina against the woman's wishes isn't in itself an act of violence, and of course all those rapes involving willing women aren't so bad either." - SardineQueen

His 'violence and an unwilling woman' reference was used to differentiate from the statutory rape example he gave (17yo with 15yo) which has a lower 'tariff'. They were talking in terms of sentencing not rape as a principle.

All the rest of the stuff you said is putting words into his mouth I'm afraid, and as more and more of the press get behind him, you are going to look increasingly isolated and a bit silly.

noblegiraffe you really must be pretty dim if you genuinely believe that most people on this thread are reacting to the DM article. I haven't ecen read it. If you look at the thread about this in feminism the links are to other newspapers and the BBC. It's not much of a stretch to see that many feminists have left wing politics - do you really believe that the newspaper of choice these days for lefty feminists is the daily mail?

"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."

and from CCP

"His 'violence and an unwilling woman' reference was used to differentiate from the statutory rape example he gave (17yo with 15yo) which has a lower 'tariff'."

HE SAID THAT LESS SERIOUS RAPE SUCH AS 17YO HAVING SEX WITH 15YO BROUGHT DOWN THE AVERAGE SENTENCE. HOWEVER 17YR HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX WITH 15YO DO NOT GET SENT TO PRISON, SO THEY CANNOT AFFECT THE AVERAGE. AND EVEN IF THEY DID IT WOULD BE FOR SEX WITH A MINOR, NOT RAPE, SO STILL WOULD NOT AFFECT THE AVERAGE. HE WAS TALKING OUT OF HIS ARSE.

I'm not saying whether he was right or wrong in his facts, I'm saying he didnt say some rape isnt serious. So stop implying it.

Sardinequeen, I'm not dim at all, quite the opposite actually. But if some people are coming on here going 'omg Ken thinks it's only proper rape if it's a stranger in an alley' then they are clearly not getting their information from the transcript.

I am interested, however, in why you continue to ignore Ken Clarke's clarifications of what he meant in favour of your own.

ccp in the course of the conversation he touched on many things. He demonstrated that he does not know the laws surrounding rape in the UK, he demonstrated that he does not know what sort of sentences rape attracts, he demonstrated that he does not know what rapes are the ones that result in conviction in the UK, and lastly but my no means leastly he clearly said that some rape is less serious than other rape, with specific reference to date rape.

You may prefer to listen to what you want him to have said, it doesn't change what he actually said.

I have read the transcript, and watched his subsequent television interviews including the one where he said that the media were focussing on rape to add some sexual excitement. A man who equates rape with sexual excitement, and does so while smirking, is not a man who I am inclined to give a huge amount of leeway to when he makes outrageous and incorrect comments about rape.

I do not believe that my take on this is wildly far from the mark, it is a similar reaction to many other people both on here and in the press. Other people can believe that he meant something other to what he said. I am taking the more straightforward view that he meant exactly what he said.

I thought Clarky did pretty well on Question time last night. (I am not a Tory)

I like the little woman who was on the panel...she usually takes a progressive line on most things.

NG so if I said "I think that all black people are stupid and should be locked up" and then everyone said "OMG you can't say that what are you thinking" and I then said "Oh whoops I didn't mean that at all I think black people are clever and nice", would YOU be inclined to quietly accept my "clarification"???

Or would you think I was a terrible racist?

I am willing to bet the latter.

I am well within my rights to think that Ken Clarke knows very little of the laws and issues surrounding rape (staggering given his experience and job but thete you go) and bases his ideas around rape myths and prejudice. It is not terribly far fetched. The majority of the people in the population think this way, it's not a stretch to think that KC is amongst their numbers.

At risk of repeating myself for a third time. What he meant to say has become irrelevant. He mucked it up by not knowing the correct terminology, showing no signs of preparation and the inability to consider the subtlety of the English language. For someone so highly educated and in his position it is not really acceptable. He compounded his gaffe by saying it was in the headlines to 'add some sexual excitement' Completely misunderstanding that rape is not about sexual excitement it is about dominance and control.

Repeating myself again if a woman who had just been raped heard his original words it could be enough to stop her reporting it. She is not going to consider what he was trying to say. He should be able to say what he was trying to say the first time round.

Sardinequeen, what a stupid analogy.

Sardine In a society like ours. Which is greedy at the top. It is clear that "Income groups of a feather flock together" so not many of us are mixing with government ministers of any party. At least you can have a go on Mumsnet at people in high places. (so called)

i havent read the dm article, wouldnt wipe my arse with that paper.

However i did see him on the BBC. lots of politicians make comments on things when they dont know 100% of the law and usuall nothing comes of it. Unfortunalty he chose to talk about rape-a very emotive subject from all sides.

I dont think he meant to cause offence although he has, i bet that wasnt researched of rehersed of someone would have said sorry you cant say that.

I think he was trying to say that a woman attacked violently in a wood (im pretty sure most rapes dont happen in woods but still) should be considered more serious than a date rape or an 18 year old having CONSENSUAL sex with a 15yr old. the latter clearly isnt rape, it just isnt. most 15 year olds know their own minds and unless the 18 year old has managed to convince the jury thats shes lieing (not unheard of im sure but then in any case there is always the chance that a guilty person many get away with it.

the date rape comment was very strange, of course its just as serious. a woman was drugged and then forced in to sex against her will. if you are not of sound/sober mind to consent then you quite simply didnt?

He did go back and explain a bit better, he certainly didnt change his story around the way some people are saying he has. I watched his other interviews aswell.

hes still a knob though, really shouldnt make throw away comments about rape.

just out of interest does anyone here know, can men be raped (not in the bottom) by a woman?

well, astitch...Victoria is a pressure type interviewer, that is what she does. A bit like Paxman or Humphreys. So she made a killing. If you like to look at it that way. But rape still has to be discussed rationally in calmer debates cheers

I think my posts have been rather calm considering.

'just out of interest does anyone here know, can men be raped (not in the bottom) by a woman?'

Legally speaking rape is penetration of a vagina without consent so if a woman were to force a man to have sex it would not be termed rape but sexual assault.

That may be true. But it would still be a serious assault.

I remeber a case were a woman took part in a group who held a man down to be assaulted. Its serious

I forgot to tell you, I have been on the radio with Victoria Derbyshire. She did not pressurise me. Perhaps because I am such a nice human being; and not a politician.

I didn't say it wasn't serious I was answering a specific question from knitted. I am well aware that anybody can be a victim of rape which is why I have mostly used the words victim and wither attacker of rapists in my posts which you would know if you considered what had been said in the rest of the thread. You will also note I said 'legally speaking' as in the legal term for it at no point mentioned seriousness and or the potential trauma the victim may feel.

ok thanks

probeblt naive of me to ask but i have always wondered because i always thought men had to have an erection to have sex, and you cant really force a man to get turned on and then shag him, so unable to rape him as if he wasnt aroused the sex couldnt take place.

unless you drugged him with viagra...?

i have no idea

anyway moving on

An erection is a physical, involuntary response it is possible for a man to have an erection and not want intercourse.

are we moving towards one handed relief....mutual masticication etc.

\nothing like a bit of intellectual chit-chat

No scousy we are talking about rape and sexual assault. The impact that has on victims and the way such crimes are portrayed in society as whole. The discussion was started based on a one man's comments on a radio show but it is now a wider debate. My post above is a statement of scientific fact. The only one debasing the debate is you, with your post at 11:27:38.

If you actually take note of what has been posted in this thread (the whole thread) you may at least begin to understand why some people take the issue so seriously and you would avoid being so flippant, then again you have planted doubt in my mind regarding that one.

Look, astitch, if you have any ideas for changing law on rape. Put it to Cameron and Clarke (They have the power to do something about it.)

Hitherto the legal establishment search for improvement; but feel the problem has no quick solution

If women are not reporting assaults because they know it may not get to court or be a great ordeal if if does...then it is difficult to see how things can change.

So called date rape is probably more common than we realise; often with both parties half drunk...and no witness. It frustrates the women, the police, and the CPS It frustating most posters her too.

scientist speak truths OF THEIR TIME not for all time. cheerrs