[Closed] Ken Clarke

I think Clarke's betrayed a pretty old school mindset that unless a woman has been threatened with violence and fought back, it's not 'proper' rape.

Aren't you putting words into his mouth there?

Mrs Toast - I respect your view though obviously my example was for the purposes of demonstrating different circumstances surrounding rape rather than the specific trauma potentially caused by specific circs.

(3)A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.

I think Clarke's betrayed a pretty old school mindset that unless a woman has been threatened with violence and fought back, it's not 'proper' rape.

Do you mean that you think Clarke holds this view or do you mean that it reminds you of what was once a widely held view?

Perhaps the interviewer was a bit aggressive, but he went on the show, bandying his ideas about. Showing his naivety, and the interviewer went for him. It wasn't really her fault, he was asking for it. What does he expect going around with that attitude on display like that. He can't complain about it afterwards, he was quite happy giving it all that before she went for him.

Three points (after having been disgusted by the misinformed rage of the anti-rape campaigner on TV just now):

Firstly, what a terrible shame that a fuss is being made over what people think he said as opposed to what he actually said. And what he actually said wasn't really an opinion of his, but his recollection of how the courts sentence. It would be a very simple matter to test the accuracy of his memory.

Secondly, to suggest a violent rape is on the same level with a rape where one participant can't consent due to being under the age of consent (but participated willingly) is absurd. We should have an IQ test before people are allowed to express the views publicly.

And on the subject of comparing violent stranger rape with ‘date-rape’, has anyone actually asked a violent rape victim if they consider that a ‘date-rape’ is equally serious? I have, but as I was warned for daring to suggest that in nature animals mate when both are sexually mature and hence humans also doing so is certainly not ’unnatural’ (as often touted) on another thread, I wouldn’t dare enlighten you.

grum - Member

Oh dear, I guess it makes me an evil **** that I laughed at that phrase? Did he really say that?

He spent the rest of the show talking about lower sentencing for diet rape.

TruckerUK if what he said was OK why is he rowing back from it faster Redgrave on speed and saying that what he said was a very poor choice of words?

Diet rape? I knew there was a good reason for me never fancying going to weight watchers! 😉

I heard his Radio 5 interview in which he sought to clarify without apologising for what people might have thought he meant. Does anybody seriously believe he did MEAN to suggest any rape per se was less serious - he was clearly trying to explain that sentencing was proportionate for different categories of rape as previosuly referred to on here. Those trying to make mileage out of his clumsy wording really need to focus on more important issues as it's that reaction which makes all our politicians so guarded and 'robotic'.

Those trying to make mileage out of his clumsy wording really need to focus on more important issues as it's that reaction which makes all our politicians so guarded and 'robotic'.

Well put. Clarke, like Field, Hooey and a pitifully few others is not a robot and that's to be encouraged.

I agree. Ken Clarke is not a stupid man and what he said has been 'journalised' for the sake of a headline; don't complain about dumbing down if you fall for this rubbish.

deepreddave - well put and that was my take on it too.

It is very easy to make a mistake as proved by the BBC News presenter tonight who said that the 'rape victim' was audibly upset on the Radio interview. To my recollection she said she was a victim of attempted rape, so proves how easy it is for an error to occur.

I'm with deepreddave - I heard the 5 Live interview and he was being brow beaten by an increasingly aggressive interviewer, got his wording a bit clumsy and that has been jumped on by the opportunistic halfwits in the press and the opposition.

He was trying to explain the difficulties in proportionate sentencing that judges are expected to deal with, using his own legal experience, to encourage a debate of a wider point that is out for consultation. Damning endictment of the idiot press and desperate Milliband that they are screaming so loudly. If we cannot have a rational discussion about sentencing policy without such hysterics, it will soon go down with immigration as being an elephant in the room.

fwiw, I understand the point he was trying to make, not sure how keen I am to allow rapists out early on a plea bargain. Or murderers, violent offenders, terrorists....all of whom would be affected by this proposal that is in consultation, but that point has got rather overlooked

Do you mean that you think Clarke holds this view or do you mean that it reminds you of what was once a widely held view?

Kind of a mixture of both - when someone pointed out that rapists normally serve around 5 years so would be out in 15 months with the new guidelines, Clarke defended the short average sentence by saying it was skewed by "date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15 year olds...

"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."

By saying that, he's saying that date rape isn't 'serious'. He's also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex, and in a different category to 'violent' rape against 'unwilling' women.

Which does sound a bit like he'd class John Worboys' crimes as not being serious, because the women got into the taxi of their own accord and accepted drinks (which were spiked), and were knocked out therefore not needing violence to rape them. I mean, women, accepting drinks from strangers - they're asking for it aren't they? And most of them were unconscious and can't actually remember what happened, so no harm, no foul, eh?

Maybe it's 'putting words into his mouth', but Clarke should really think about the words coming out of his mouth if he doesn't want them to be so easily misconstrued - if they are being miscontrued. At worst he does belittle 'date rape'. At best he's a moron.

1)It is a sad indictment of politics that Milliband used this as an opportunity to score points rather than deal with a difficult area of law, whatever you think about KC , Millibands comments are just as destructive, and he knows it.
2) A pal of mine 3 years ago was "done" for statuatory rape, he was 16 and 4 months, girlfriend was 14 and 11 months, her father was well placed in the legal system (I'm not saying any more as many of you will have read about this) and to my mind used his position to mitigate his inabilty to accept his daughters inevitable progress in life. The lad has a prison sentence, criminal record and is on the register, because he was as much in love as any of us were when we were 16. Legally he is a rapist, morally he is a boy who has been raped by the system.

He's also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex,

Maybe it's 'putting words into his mouth',

He was using the point, rather clumsily under duress, to illustrate the differential in severity and circumstances. I would say you are putting words in his mouth as he quite clearly stated his view on the seriousness of the crime.

Toys - I sympathise as I also know of someone in very similar circumstances who is now on the register. He was 17 when he met his 'girlfriend' in a pub. He too was a victim of 'Father intervention' when he discovered they were sexually active. She had lied about her age so he was totally unaware she was only 15 at the time.

ken is one of the few [s]torries[/s] politicians who i actually respect
i think his ideas on justice reform have been reasoned and free from media hype
iirc rape has one of the lowest reoffending rates of all crimes and if the sentencing reductions target those guilty of 'statutory' and possibly date rape i would speculate that these rates are even lower and that ken knows this

ken also knows that unless he explains his argument as clearly and simply as possible on a platform as reactionary as a talk radio station hes gonna get jumped on
and that in anyway inmplying that date rape is not a 'serious' rape he is being very naive

while millibands crawing about it is extremely unpleasant and the sensationalist headlines all too predictable and tragic

but to tar the leftie press or any politician alone with that brush is also naive
just look at the jo yates landlord trial in the largely torry press
or the deeply personal character assassination of gordon brown
and if anyone saw See You in Court last night on the bbc as Murdoch group and the hate mail pushed a blatantly racist story they knew to be false beyond the means of any normal person to fight them [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011dl62 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011dl62[/url]

ken should know that todays politics & the press is a dirty game
im sure he will get past this and i hope that he is able to press on with his reforms

Mrs Toast - Member

"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."

By saying that, he's saying that date rape isn't 'serious'. He's also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex, and in a different category to 'violent' rape against 'unwilling' women.

No he wasn't. That's the problem, there's just a bit too much reaching and interpretation going on with this.

What he was sayinmg is all rape is serious but the impact of the rape on the 'victim' can vary depending on the circumstances (" " because sometimes the 'victim' is a willing particpiant).

If he's guilty of anything it's suggesting stranger rape has more impact on the victim than date rape and that has more impact than under age sex (AKA rape).

"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."

When discussing this with mrs leffe we concluded that that single word 'serious' is what caused the problem today and that if he had simply left it out there wouldn't have been anything like the trouble. The problem is that having a longer tariff implies some gradation but that using a word to express it isn't allowed because that implies some forms of rape are less serious. Does anyone have a form of words that would have worked here?

Classic example of all the brains in the world, common sense of a tree stump.

Of course he has reactionary ideas - he is an old tory. Why are rape conviction rates so low? because of these attitudes that are all over society as expressed by him. he is not alone in these reprehensible attitudes

Dinosaur ( if usually an entertaining one)

I find myself agreeing with TJ here. Date rape, marital rape, violent stranger rape, I don't really see a difference. As for reducing jail terms for a guilty plea, what a joke. Given the impact on the victim (yes I did know a victim of rape) lets set a minimum tariff of say 30 years. Plead guilty, reduced to 29.

Coyote - Member

As for reducing jail terms for a guilty plea, what a joke

It's a pretty good idea. Culprit pleads out, no need for protracted trial, which is obviously very much in the victim's favour. And it needs to be a worthwhile difference to make it in the culprit's interest to go for it.

Whether the overall sentencing tariff is appropriate is another question though

Given the impact on the victim (yes I did know a victim of rape) lets set a minimum tariff of say 30 years. Plead guilty, reduced to 29.

This is not far off the three strikes and its life idea in the late eighties, it was generally agreed it was a bad idea as rapists would just eliminate any witnesses (ie the victim) as it would be the same tariff as murder.

Brownbacks - you are right in general but on this one its a clear throwback to the attitudes of decades ago IMO. On other stuff with judicial policy he does talk sense.

Why are rape conviction rates so low? because of these attitudes that are all over society as expressed by him

Of course he has reactionary ideas - he is an old tory. Why are rape conviction rates so low? because of these attitudes that are all over society as expressed by him. he is not alone in these reprehensible attitudes

Innocent until [b]proven[/b] guilty is the cornerstone of British justice. How would suggest that this figure was improved without an increase in wrongful convictions?

Yes those attitudes pervade the whole judicial systemand is a major factor in low conviction rates

Woody - Member

do the reprehensible attitudes you talk of pervade juries, the Police, judicial system

Also friends, parents, workmates, husbands...

Is it not the fact that it is very often one persons word against another, with no witnesses, the major over-riding factor in these low rates?

Researchers tracking 3,500 court cases found "sceptical" prosecutors and police often did not believe victims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4296433.stm

Lots of other data and reports on this but there are such obstacles placed in the way of victims and such very exaggerate risk of false complaints.

Its all out there if you want to see it. 6% conviction rate.

Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of British justice. How would suggest that this figure was improved without an increase in wrongful convictions?

The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction, compared with 34% of criminal cases in general. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged* with rape were convicted following a successful trial.

* I assume that means a 1/4 of those convicted were due to a succesful trial it is from the guardian so no surprise of the error/mistype.

Defendants were also far more likely in rape case to claim the victim consented to the alleged attack

In the absence of any forensic evidence proving force, how exactly do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent wasn't given - or are you suggesting that the burden of proof should be decreased for rape?

Dont think anyone has a simple solution but I assume no one is happy with that conviction rate either.

I agree entirely - the trouble is some [s]Englishmen living in Scotland[/s] people do seem to think there is (or ought to be) a simple solution.

Interesting link TJ - without belittling or disagreeing with the findings in principal, I find using terms such as
"some evidence of poor investigation and understanding of the law"
"Researchers tracking 3,500 court cases found "sceptical" prosecutors and police often did not believe victims"
"An overestimation of the scale of false allegations among some officials led to victims losing confidence in the system"
in amongst the statisitics of successful prosecution very annoying and smacks of journalism and/or the research body justifying their existence and funding by making the report as sensational and damning as possible.

I imagine it would be very easy to find 'sceptical prosecutors' and 'police who did not believe victims' in amongst 3,500 cases. How difficult would have been to say for example that 25% of prosecutors were sceptical, or 30% of police did not believe the victims? Could it have been the figures were so low they wouldn't have made good reading? Actual numbers would make it far easier to assess the extent of the problem and bring measures to combat and change attitudes.

There is no denying that steps need to be taken to improve the reporting and successful prosecution rate, which is quite appalling whichever way you look at it. I find it very depressing that women are evidently still reluctant to come forward and pursue cases due to failures within the Police and CPS etc.

Maybe the fuss kicked up due to Mr Clarke will highlight this and bring about some much needed change in procedures and attitudes.

Well clearly the solution to rape is to get everybody on political correctness courses - by such measures the conviction rate will doubtless increase by a huge amount

The way people use language has a huge impact on lots of things in society.

aracer - and where did I say there was a simple solution? I merely stated that attitudes such as Clarkes that downplay the seriousness of the crime are all to prevalent in the judicail system and hamper effective prosecution

Are you saying, TJ, that all rape should attract the same sentence?

No - I am saying simply what I wrote.

Then we are back to where we started. If there are different sentences then one case is more serious than another. You can pick an alternative comparative adjective if you don't like 'serious'.

I listened to the interviews I I don't think that he said at all that rape wasn't serious. The interviewer selected the shortest possible sentence to allow her to show how ridiculous 15 months would be for that crime but then wouldn't allow him to express that some cases of rape could attract a a longer sentence.

To the best of my recollection I have never voted Conservative nor Liberal but I detest the way the voracity of the media is allowing a single slip in wording to dictate political direction

I have just listened to the interview again and I really I don't know where this "attitudes such as Clarkes" comes from.

He repeatedly said that rape is a serious crime. At no time did he attempt to trivialise some forms of rape but you could almost hear the excitement in the interviewers voice when she thought she had managed to trip him up with a 'date rape' question - she hadn't IMO - he actually said something like "date rape varies enormously and that this is left to the judge to decide the sentence". Surely that is a reasonable statement?

I think it is a great shame that this has been reported in the way it has, as part of the proposal would have been of benefit to some of those who have been raped.

I also don't vote Tory and dispair when this discussion is continually reduced to petty party politics. The 'Old Tory' moniker is just silly and you should know better.

This thread was always going to end up this way. The usual vociferous PC, right on minority shouting down common sense with silly links, spurious facts and snide political digs. Stop being so bloody outraged and think about the sentiment. Anyone with half an ounce of intelligence can differentiate between the various scenarios that have been put forward.

The chap in question was a little clumsy with his words but the resultant furore is plain daft. Some are jumping on the schoolyard bullying/bickering bandwagon, some are 'outraged' and some (most?) think there is some sense in the sentiment behind the words. A lot are just plain scared of being seen to be doing/saying the 'wrong' thing as this subject is as explosive as racism, terrorism etc. This in terms of peoples reaction to debate, not the crimes themselves (before any silly billies get themselves overexcited).

God help us all if this is what we have become.

boblo - Old tory as in a tory and old - which he is.

No one in his position should use the language he did and the very fact he did shows his attitude that some rapes are not serious crimes.

its about how his words show his attitudes. He was not "was a little clumsy with his words" His usage of words betrays his attitudes

No petty party politics from me - just despair that still we have these outdated attitudes in our politicians and despair that so many on here can defend it.

TJ, sorry that's piffle. You felt the need to use the term 'old Tory' as a perjoritive and you know that. Do you always preface each reference to someone with a brief factual description? 'Middle aged Right On liberal TJ said....' No, don't be silly....

You and others like you are making capital out of this and sadly, can't help yourselves. You should have more self control.

You're jumping on the bovver boots bandwagon to kick one of the few politicians (of any persuasion) that (mostly) talks sense. I'd prefer 10 KC's in position than any of the slimy, deceitful, me me me dullards that occupy 95% of the roles in modern British politics.

No TJ it is petty, you are just furthering a stereotype.

Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote rather than putting your interpretations on it? You are so desperate to put the boot into anything you see as PC that you fail to actually read what I wrote.

Being Old and Being a tory colours his attitudes. He has previous on this as well.

its a pity 'cos as I said earlier I do have some time and respect for him. Its a shame on this sort of topic he has the attitudes from teh 50s.

Not you usual standard of argument TJ and you should be ashamed of yourself as you have put your own political prejudices ahead of the facts.

Are you suggesting that consensual sex between a 16 year old male and a 15 year old female is a serious crime?

Woody - that is not rape hence it is not a part of the discussion

I have not put my own political prejudices ahead of the facts - those railing against me have done so in their desire to jump on anything considerd "PC"

The facts are simple - he used a form of words that shows he considers "date rape" not to be a serious crime.

Sorry TJ, sometimes your stuff is not worth bothering with. You'll now bang on and on about how you've been misrepresented and people don't understand. I'm not playing.

Don't denegrate others for showing prejudice when you've just demonstrated, you haven't got the self control to stop yourself.

Folowing that with pages of TJ outraged 'read my lips' waffle is just a waste of everyones time.

BTW, I'm not anti PC or putting the boot in. I'm trying to understand what was said with an open mind rather than being automatically outraged at the very idea.

<edit> The facts are simple - he was ambushed uby a vociferous group looking to make political capital out of a very serious crime and the usual suspects have lined up to add their 'me too' contributions.

Of course you are putting the boot in. To say some forms of rape are not serious is wrong. simple as. Thats what Clarke did.

Try going back and reading my posts with an open mind.

Mrs Toast - Member

"I know as a bloke I'd rather be forced to have sex with my partner than a complete stranger ALTHOUGH clearly both would be rape. The two would certainly have a different impact on me."

I don't know about that - if I was in a situation where my partner raped me I'd find it more traumatic, because it'd mean that I didn't really know the person that I thought I loved and trusted. I'd have that to deal with on top of the rape.

I think Clarke's betrayed a pretty old school mindset that unless a woman has been threatened with violence and fought back, it's not 'proper' rape.

I'm trying to understand what was said with an open mind rather than being automatically outraged at the very idea.

I have to express this in terms of maths..

Boblo + TJ = 0

As in Boblo's statement above shows that he thinks in the exact opposite of TJ. TJ is negative boblo..

TJ, I never had you as a troll but it appears that you are which is sad
🙁

The facts are simple - he used a form of words that shows he considers "date rape" not to be a serious crime.

You know that he didn't say that, you are deliberately choosing to misinterpret to make a political point.

If there are different sentences then one case is more serious than another. You can pick an alternative comparative adjective if you don't like 'serious'.

TandemJeremy - Member
Of course you are putting the boot in. To say some forms of rape are not serious is wrong. simple as. Thats what Clarke did.

Simple words for you: I have not said and do not think that. Stop being silly now.

Reading your earlier posts is a waste of time TJ (unless I come back and say 'you're absolutely right'). You're now reverting to the STW TJ stereotype that people really don't like.

. To say some forms of rape are not serious is wrong. simple as. Thats what Clarke did.

Did he? From what I recall he said that some forms of rape were less serious than others not that some forms of rape are not serious.

Perhaps you should actually [s]read[/s] listen to what [s]I wrote[/s] he said rather than putting your interpretations on it?

leffeboy - by referring to "serious rape" that must mean there is non serious rape.. he did not say "more serious" he said "serious"

I am not delibertly misinterpreting anything to make a political point. As I said earlier I respect Clarke in general but on this he shows a mindset that is rooted in the 50s.

I am not trolling - I am hoping that some will open their minds but apparently not.

There are two issues here, conviction rates and length of sentence once convicted.

Nobody can argue that conviction rates are too low (what you do about it is another matter) but there is a debate to be had about length of sentence. That's what KC was talking about and to assume having that debate means he thinks conviction rates are acceptable or that rape is not a serious crime (when he said just the opposite) is wrong and dangerous.

Unless of course you are an old right winger like TJ who believes in fixed tariff sentencing 😉

Boblo - I did not say you said that - I said Clarke said that.

Really - go back thru what I have posted and read it with an open mind.. nOt what people claim I have posted but what I actually did post.

gonfishin - no he did not. He referred to "serious rape" which must mean there is non serious rape.

by referring to "serious rape" that must mean there is non serious rape

No that's [i]your[/i] interpretation, another interpretaion is that there is less serious e.g. one that does not involve violence for example. That does not make either acceptable or not serious but does allow people to distinguish between the two.

Why is acceptable for you to interpret the words of others but when others interpret your words you get all huffy?

Havent the time to argue but would just like to say I agree with TJ

leffeboy - by referring to "serious rape" that must mean there is non serious rape.. he did not say "more serious" he said "serious"

Only if you choose to interpret it that way. I'm another who would never vote Tory but I despair that this is the level of political debate we are reduced to.

Mrs Toast - Member

Do you mean that you think Clarke holds this view or do you mean that it reminds you of what was once a widely held view?

Kind of a mixture of both - when someone pointed out that rapists normally serve around 5 years so would be out in 15 months with the new guidelines, Clarke defended the short average sentence by saying it was skewed by "date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15 year olds...

"A serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman - the tariff is longer than that."

By saying that, he's saying that date rape isn't 'serious'. He's also inferring that victims of date rape are somehow willing by putting them in the same category as consensual teenage sex, and in a different category to 'violent' rape against 'unwilling' women.

Which does sound a bit like he'd class John Worboys' crimes as not being serious, because the women got into the taxi of their own accord and accepted drinks (which were spiked), and were knocked out therefore not needing violence to rape them. I mean, women, accepting drinks from strangers - they're asking for it aren't they? And most of them were unconscious and can't actually remember what happened, so no harm, no foul, eh?

Maybe it's 'putting words into his mouth', but Clarke should really think about the words coming out of his mouth if he doesn't want them to be so easily misconstrued - if they are being miscontrued. At worst he does belittle 'date rape'. At best he's a moron.

If a woman from the feminists against rape had said "in the case of serious rape with violence" no one would have blinked. And if one did analyse it she would not be villified, as the presumption (or the prejudice) is that she is very pro victim and on the "correct" side of this. Because KC said it TJ and others have applied their prejudice and assumed it means something deeper. Just one word is really all this is about, and your interpretation of this one word is fundamentally based on your prejudices.

TJ you need to open your mind.
TJ you need to remember that being wrong is OK, that is how you learn, so maybe take a step back and think why is everyone against me, is it because I am wrong or I am an unrecognised genius? You decide.

Toys - read Mrs Toasts post. Everyone is not against me. several on this thread follow the same sort of line.

My mind is open. Try reading what I wrote carefully. I like ken Clarke but will not let that influence my opinion of what he did here.

Repeatedly quoting someone who agrees with you but is also guilty of putting words into Ken Clarke's mouth isn't an argument. Honestly...

No TJ, you've performed as expected. Straight into the 'right on' corner whilst demonstrating a bit of the prejudice you apparently despise as your inclusivity mantle slipped and you started slinging party political perjoritives around. I'm just surprised at the absence of your best mate to back you up in this piffle....

Quote from a friend of a friend on Facebook (female), 'someone should date rape Ken Clarke and see if he still thinks it's not serious'. Nice, would it be considered acceptable to make that comment about a female?

Boblo - I LIKE KEN CLARKE no party political pejorative here. Straw as home secretary said something similar and I castigated him for it.

Please explain how I demonstrated prejudice?

Yeah I read Mrs Toasts post, and it's a wrong analysis of what he said for exactly the sames reasons as have been outlined by me and others.
KC is motivated to change the law to make things better for the victim, it is completley pointless and destructived to make a massive fuss over a possibly "mis-said" word and divert attention away fron the real debate. It stinks of political opportunism by Milliband et al, and by TJ, really it shoots down any credibilty you may have in this debate becasue you cannot see beyond the triumphalism of "outing" clarke as a dinosaur. Which achieves nothing positive for anyone.

Grum, are you allowed to tell your friend she's being an idiot?

TandemJeremy - Member
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote rather than putting [b]your interpretations[/b] on it?

Yet you spectacularly fail to do that yourself TJ.

TandemJeremy - Member
He referred to "serious rape" [b]which must mean there is non serious rape[/b].

TandemJeremy - Member

Please explain how I demonstrated prejudice?

Read the posts 😀 Might be near the bit about 'Old Tory' you know the factual description you always preface a sentence with. 'Julie. young, red dress' Y'know, that sort of thing?

Straw as home secretary said something similar and I castigated him for it.

Exactly which shows how you have missed the point of the argument and why the problem is no nearer a solution, because of the petty squabbling over some badly chosen words.

No toys - I am genuinely disappointed 'cos as I said several times Clarke often makes a lot of sense on judicial matters.

phil - if he says there is a category of "serious rape" there must be a category of "non serious rape" You cannot have a category of "serious" without there being a category of "non serious"

No, there could be a category of EVEN more serious rape as all these crimes are deemed serious?

Grum, are you allowed to tell your friend she's being an idiot?

It's a friend of a friend, I don't know them. Tempting to tell them anyway but I'm not sure I want Facebook drama on this issue.

- if he says there is a category of "serious rape" there must be a category of "non serious rape" You cannot have a category of "serious" without there being a category of "non serious"

Yeah this is just a semantic/logical fail. There could be any number of steps between serious and non serious.

You can write a list that looks like this(in order of severity):

not serious
slightly serious
quite serious
[b]serious[/b]
very serious
bloody horrific like being in dantes inferno

or this:

[b]serious[/b]
quite serious
very serious
incredibly serious
beyond serious

or this:

Not serious
slightly serious
a bit more serious
very serious
[b]serious[/b]

You can see that it is easy to pu the word serious on its own anywhere on the line of seriousness depending on your appraoch, and it demonstrates how pathetic it is to be jumping on every little semantic nuance for postional, ego, or political gain.

if he says there is a category of "serious rape" there must be a category of "non serious rape" You cannot have a category of "serious" without there being a category of "non serious"

EDIT: same as Toys post above