Ken Clarke differentiates date rape from 'serious rape'

[NotFromConcentrate]

AIBU to think it's time he went?

Don't patronise me scousy Go back read the whole thread. Especially the points I have made and the ideas I have come up with ideas. You will find I never said it would be easy.

Once you have read it then come back and tell me I have zero understanding of any issues surrounding this. Then tell me I have done nothing to support others.

BTW I am a scientist.

^"Gosh bethel no there isn't a wide variety!!

Rape is the act of putting an object or body part into the vagina or anus of a person who doesn't want it there afaik. It is very clear. That in itself is a violent crime.

Sometimes additional crimes are committed at the same time: stalking, battery, theatre to kill. They carry additional sentencing."^

Whilst it is true that 'rape is rape', that isn't and shouldn't be the only consideration in sentencing. You could just as easily say "Crime is the act of breaking the law. It is very clear." and see where that leads.

It is right that the circumstances specific to the individual crime influence the sentence (unfortunately all the sentences are currently too light, but that's another matter).

xstitch You have great faith in what you say on rape. Please put it to the people who have the power to do something about it. We at best are a good talking shop . Not power brokers.

I you had read the thread properly you would know I have written to MPs laying out my views. My letter to Ann Widdecombe the day before yesterday was extra and because she still has tehe power to influence people through her writing and any body who says anything intentional or not that makes it more difficult for victims to report their attack are wrong.

CORDOVA

Beautifully well put and summarised.

Here endth the thread.

erm, I think Cordova was factually incorrect, wasn't she?

I am very ashamed that I too did not know that 'statutory rape' didn't exist until this story came up - I think I must have picked up the phrase somewhere and never realised it didn't apply here/now.

KC should be even more ashamed than I am, if that is the confusion/mistake he made.

Am busy trying to get MNHQ to delete it .... hadn't read it properly ooh the shame

He's a typical Tory misogynist. Not only are their policies disproportionately harming women - his views on rape are odious. He should go now.

Ok, can't work out how to delete it so I'll explain myself.

(Bu**er, was not going to get drawn in but here I go..........)

I listened to his interviews on radio 4 (and not read any articles) when he said what he said. So, what I think he was trying to say is that sentencing guidelines already allow judges to vary sentences according to the nature of the case

eg a boy and girl friend in a relationship (he 17, she 15) is deemed statutory rape (as she can not give consent) therefore boy guilty of statutory rape.

And he clumsily tried to draw the distinction between that and violent rape. Which the law already does in the sentancing guidelines i no change of policy.

Secondly, he was annoyed a newspaper (presumably the DM....I live overseas so am guessing) had sensationalised a consultation process about increasing tariffs for early admittance of guilt from 33 to 50% of the sentencing guideline.

That proposal applies to all crimes (but I hear the newspaper had chosen to sensationalise things by just focussing on rape). He was using the term "sex up" or what ever he said in the same way Gilligan used "sex up" re the dossier re WMD. It was particularly bad choice of words given the nature of the discussion, but thats the context.

I always voted labour when I lived in the UK. Not a fan of the Tories but the rabid press and TV and many in the Labour Party (I am afraid to say) are making political capital over what Palin would call a "mis-spoke"

'eg a boy and girl friend in a relationship (he 17, she 15) is deemed statutory rape (as she can not give consent) therefore boy guilty of statutory rape.'

Er no it would be legally be sex with a minor, providing she had consented obviously. If she had consented then would just be rape. For a lay person not to know this is understandable. For the minister of justice, qualified QC who has been looking into this area with regard to policy change it is not acceptable not to know this. KungFu explains the law on this bit better further up the thread.

This has been explained so many times now!

If you say 'rape is rape' then you minimise the crime of rape. Referring to a man as a rapist should mean something. If you use the term to cover everything from a man pestering his girlfriend or wife for sex and her acquiescing just to keep him happy, to horrific cases of women being dragged down alleys with a knife at their throat, then you are letting the perpetrators of the latter being let off the hook by being branded with the same term as the perpetrators of the former (which is something that a lot of men are guilty of doing, for better or worse).

I do not know exactly where the lines are drawn, but rape is not 'just rape'. There are several severities of the crime, just as with all other crimes.

it's so amazing how it's NEVER people who are rape victims themselves who say that calling men who rape their wives rapists (for instance) "minimises" or is unfair to the victims of stranger rapes. It's always people who don't listen and think they know better.

is it groundhog day?

Yes thank you Lenin that is the other thing I wanted to say.

All those of you scouring your imagination for examples of when rape really isn't as rapey as all that - who do you think you are helping?

Rape victims?

Or rapists?

There is different kids of rape tho?.

Like a underage consensual 15 year old having sex with her 17 year old boyfriend, but the man still gets a criminal record and the girl walks away.

I dont agree rape is rape in the above situation.

(this may have already been said, however cna to read through 600+ pages).

sigh again: how many times does it have to be explained? Why are some people so eager to make excuses for rapists and to look for ways of minimising their crimes?

Refusing to go further than 'rape is rape' necessarily minimises a subset of those crimes.

Rape is rape.
Judges routinely distinguish between the circumstances of the crime when sentencing.
The two are not incompatible.

I'm a victim of rape myself, I'm not making excuses!.

It is rape, since the age of consent is 16, so according to the law, the child cant give consensual sex, as she is considered a child, so would be classed as statutory rape.

Its not as clear cut as the definition is!.

(sigh again) Read the thread.