Rape sentencing etc being discussed on PMQs now

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Justice Secretary made some stupid remarks this morning, apparently.

I think what's angering me even more (if fucking possible) is his cavalier attitude now, this kind of I'm sorry if you had the temerity to take offence at my words which you misinterpreted - I thought only my mother apologised like that.

CH4 news.

Now he is saying that he is absolutely sure and it is right and proper that it is rape if teenagers have sex.

For christs sake.

he hasn't got the first clue what he's talking about has he. he simply does not understand the law or the issues surrounding this at all~.

Has he not even botherd to ask Keir Starmer (who I have quite a lot of time for on rape law matters) if he's got his facts right? Or anyone?

I might just email him the other thread.

juggling - there already is. An 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old could be charged with sexual activity with a child under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Of course if it was non-consensual it would be rape.

Sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 13 is always rape, whether consenting or not. This is what is referred to as "statutory rape", although that's more of a US concept.

Oh, and Ken Clarke is a fucking idiot.

Ok, the man is obviously stupid/badly misinformed or both. His comments are totally out of order, especially considering his position within the Gov.

So...what can we do?

What he said was very confusing and muddled, when we have a right to expect a degree of clarity from him on this serious issue. Was he being deliberately confusing eg, suggesting that a few teenage sexual relationships would skew the rape statistics, or is his thinking really that muddled

Sorry for massive, massive post. I don't mean to keep hijacking threads, I'm really sorry.

och never mind, I give up on him. Have had one further, stonewalling reply ("I never said that" to me saying it sounded like he thought there was a spectrum of consent. Have unfollowed him.

In a larger sense, though, I find it is really hard to stop yourself trying to convince people with rational arguments when their opinion is based on things that are not rational ... like thinking that "There are reasons why a particular rape might merit a lower sentence - some about the offence, some the offender" (sample view of that bloke)

Huffed and puffed around the living room a bit and have now emailed the PM and my local MP expressing my anger and calling for Clarke's resignation. Not sure that it will do anything but at least I now feel I have done something. I'm going to chivvy my colleagues at work to do the same.

Working day for me tomorrow, will send emails then. Am too tired now and they'd be shit.

Sorry for banging on re the arsey KC Twitter supporter. Am gonna ask for post with link to be deleted, b/c I have told myself I wouldn't link MN to anything obviously identifiable in RL and feel I should have stuck to that.

I do think, though, that this sort of shit that KC has come out with has given a LOT of people with questionable views on rape an opportunity to air them in the guise of criticizing the "hysteria" of the media response. And it has made them feel vindicated. That is why I got so pissed off at the Twitter guy; he seemed so fucking smug about it.

Ken Clarke will be on question time tonight

According the their website it's Jack Straw, Melanie Phillips (oh the joy) and the marvellous Shami Chakrabarti. It's in Wormwood Scrubs tonight as well - no doubt some of the audience will be thrilled to hear about Ken's plans to let them out early.

Just watching the wright stuff

Anita Dobson is great!

I'm not sure I can cope with watching Melanie Phillips live. Just hearing her on the Moral Maze has meant I've had to put my radio in a cupboard to stop me hurling it across the room

wright stuff descended into rape myths etc

KC has really muddied the waters by claiming that an 18 yo having consensual sex with a 15yo is committing statutory rape and could well go to prison. Everyone is using that as a point of reference to say HA! Not all rapes are as bad. Maybe there should be classifications...

AND they finished the piece by saying women and girls should follow standard safety precautions like not walking alone after dark ARGH!!!!

"HA! Not all rapes are as bad. Maybe there should be classifications..."

Is what people are saying. Not to be read that I think there should be classifications.

I have been reminded about the debates that went on in the US recently and this

Article on BBC website here quite good.

haven't looked at the comments

flyingcloud that link says to go away if you are in the UK!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1218279-URGENT-Would-you-like-to-be-on-ITV-News-At-Ten-talking-about-Ken-Clarke if anyone wants to talk about this on the news tonight?

Read SardineQueen's link to the BBC article - v. interesting. I realised I didn't know that this was in the CPS sentencing guidelines though:

Mitigating factor: Victim engaged in consensual sexual activity with the offender on the same occasion and immediately before the offence

So is that implying that some rapes are indeed 'less serious'? I am very uncomfortable with the idea of 'mitigating factors' and this one - that saying 'yes' once makes your saying 'no' the next time somehow less meaningful - disturbing.

I didn't read the guidelines lion.

That is really shocking, I had no idea that was the case.