[Closed] Ken Clarke

No Toys, it's binary - everyone knows [i]that[/i]. Serious/non serious.

Rearrange: to, wrong, conclusion, jumped

TJ wrote

Try reading what I wrote carefully

I give up. You continually reduce threads to a pathetic "misunderstood TJ against the world" and refuse to acknowledge or accept that another point of view might actually have some merit. Do you really think that anyone has the time or inclination to go back over your every word?

There is a broad agreement on this thread regarding rape and what could have been an interesting an enlightening discussion has once again been reduced to petty point scoring and semantics.

Well done, I hope you think you won 🙁

boblo

😆

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

No. It means that there can be less serious rape rather than non-serious. I would choose 'less serious', you would choose 'non-serious'. The point is that the whole of this huge discussion is falling on the interpretation of the opposite of a single word. Something that wasn't actually said but was [i]implied[/i] was said

what nonsense is that

And nicely put toys19

Is there non-serious murder?

The debate over first and second degree murder never got quite so emotive IIRC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7886251/Murderers-to-escape-automatic-life-sentences.html

I'm reasonably sure that KC meant serious and more-serious. That's a perfectly valid thing to debate but suggesting that he meant that some rape is not serious is party politics, taking advantage of a poor choice of words by KC. All IMO of course.

Interesting link here on the cps website - [url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/ ]cps sentencing manual on rape[/url]

Essentially it breaks down all the categories of "seriousness" and pretty much blows Milliband out of the water.

People really get hung up over the odd detail and use of words in a conversation. I heard the interview live, and just knew some people would boil over what he said.

It was quite clear what he was saying, and a fair enough point. People like TJ are the reason why politicians have to act like moronic robots, much the same as other high profile people.

I'm reasonably sure that KC meant serious and more-serious. That's a perfectly valid thing to debate but suggesting that he meant that some rape is not serious is party politics, taking advantage of a poor choice of words by KC. All IMO of course.

This is essentially the truth, the key things being "I'm reasonabaly sure" and "IMO of course".

No one really knows whether KC has an outdated view on rape, they can only make assumptions on what he says. In this case he seems to have used the wrong words and the question is whether that was a simple mistake or whether it was more of a 'Freudian slip' (for want of a better phrase), and betrayed his true opinion on the matter.

Oh lord I thought this had all been sorted out yesterday afternoon?

Can I raise the point about the 6% conviction rate please because I don't think it's technically correct.

This was brought up a few months back by one of the women in the shadow cabinet, (was it Yvette Cooper?)

At that time the statistic was criticised for being very misleading because the conviction rate for rape cases that are actually prosecuted is actuyally 58%, broadly the same as for all other crimes

The MP concerned was using it to make a political (and in my view a gender political) point and has been criticised on both the left and the right for a number of reasons, not least because it could easily disuade more victims from reporting a rape, wrongly believing a conviction was almost impossible.

It's more correct to say that the ratio between reported cases and prosecution is very low and there will be a whole host of reasons for that.

Sensible question(?) What's the ratio of report/prosecute for serious crime in general?

BTW getting everyone away from speculating on what KC actually meant is [i]really[/i] not helpful 🙂

The MP concerned was using it to make a political (and in my view a gender political) point and has been criticised on both the left and the right for a number of reasons, not least because it could easily disuade more victims from reporting a rape, wrongly believing a conviction was almost impossible.

I think the same about the interviewer yesterday. By stating that a convicted rapits will be back on the streets in a year, she's going to put victims off reporting the crime.

It was Harriet Harman that made the statement and it was Lady Stern, who put together the Stern Report on the subject, who criticised her for it, suggesting the figure of 6% was reached in a way not used for evaluating any other crime statistics. Stern also said there was annecdotal evidence that the use of the 6% figure had indeed disuaded women from reporting their ordeal.

It seems that around 25% of reported cases are actually prosectued and of those 58% result in conviction. That conviction rate is actually higher than for a lot of other violent offences.

What I am not sure I get is how the 6% figure, right or otherwise, is actually reached since 58% of 25% gives a conviction ratio of reports to convictions of 14.5%.

This seems to be a pretty balanced overview: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/05/rape-sentences-clarke-victim

Other stuff here: http://beneaththewig.com/in-screwing-ken-clarke-victoria-derbyshire-****ed-rape-victims

Good points GT and mike.

The way this has been reported will have a much more detrimental effect than anything Clarke actually said in relation to the reform, which I believe was very positive step for victims.

It's a shame that more prominence can't be given to the figures above but I guess that wouldn't make much of a headline. Balanced reporting seems to be a thing of the past.

[url= http://beneaththewig.com/ ]fixed mikes link[/url] which is worth a read.

Some people just want to be "outraged" about issues (especially when there is political prejudice involved) and jump on a miss chosen word and just don't let go.

[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/05/ken-clarke-comments-rape ]more newstatesman[/url]

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.

I've been asked to correct this I posted on p3.

It was [b]unlawful sex with a minor[/b] not [b]rape[/b], so he isn't legally a rapist, althoguh I still maintain he was raped by the system, he had a custodial sentence and is ont he register.

Thanks for the link Toys - exactly what I was trying to say but rather more eloquently written.

Edit: That Laurie Penny article is a disgrace

I've been asked to correct this I posted on p3.

Doesn't it depend on when it happened? I think the law was changed in 2003 according to TJ.

Oh and if you want to see gender politics in action, just read or listen to Laurie Penny.

allthepies - Member
Some people just want to be "outraged" about issues (especially when there is political prejudice involved) and jump on a miss chosen word and just don't let go.

Anyone in mind 😉

I've been asked to correct this I posted on p3.

Doesn't it depend on when it happened? I think the law was changed in 2003 according to TJ.

Maybe but in this case I was asked to change it by the defense barrister in the case who I know and pointed towards this thread for interest, I had mistated the facts, and was asked to correct it.

Oh good lord, that's quite a bit different to your average STW retraction!

Toys, you were asked by the Defence Barrister...? Does he/she ride a mountain bike and subscribe to STW? 😯

For what it's worth I think by using the term 'Serious' there was pretty obvious implication that there was such a category as 'non-serious'. He then went on to talk about underage sex, and date-rape,in terms than some of those cases may not be He has since clarified that he thinks all rape is serious. By which I think he means date rape and underage sex as well.

boblo no I

pointed towards this thread for interest

Anyone who is so insensitive as to use the line '...Victoria Derbyshire f*cks' rape victims is really a bit of a tool.

For what it's worth I think by using the term 'Serious' there was pretty obvious implication that there was such a category as 'non-serious'.

Only if you ignore the bit where he says all rape is serious.

Anyone who is so insensitive as to use the line '...Victoria Derbyshire f*cks' rape victims is really a bit of a tool.

I think this is just falling victim to the same issues as arguing about Ken's words.

Woody - Member

TJ wrote

Try reading what I wrote carefully

I give up. You continually reduce threads to a pathetic "misunderstood TJ against the world" and refuse to acknowledge or accept that another point of view might actually have some merit. Do you really think that anyone has the time or inclination to go back over your every word?

There is a broad agreement on this thread regarding rape and what could have been an interesting an enlightening discussion has once again been reduced to petty point scoring and semantics.

Well done, I hope you think you won

I did not say that at all which is why I asked people actually read what I posted as much of what people calm I say is not what I said. There is not broad agreement - but anyone who disagrees gets shouted down.

I don't think I won, I don't believe in winners and losers in this sort of debate. Do you think you won because all the people who think Clarks attitude is acceptable shouted down anyone who dared disagree of which there are a few?

I shut Up ( nice tag) because I had made the point and there was nothing else to say

I had made the point and there was nothing else to say

Never stopped you before.

I am trying (to learn) 🙂
Tag now removed

teej that was my tag how were you able to remove it?

Mods I suspect...

and fair play to TJ for at least trying to change. The first step... 😉

toys - I have the majik keyboard

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't - I was laughing at it and didn't complain to the mods either.

I cannot see why it was removed. no fair.

The road to redemption....

Nah, I just thought you were so embarrassed, you'd gone off to self flagellate for half an hour 🙂

For what it's worth I think by using the term 'Serious' there was pretty obvious implication that there was such a category as 'non-serious'.

Only if you ignore the bit where he says all rape is serious.

but that was much later. He didn't say that at the time he referred to serious rape. So do you think he is he now saying that underage sex and the varying degrees of date rape are all serious rapes?

Bingo

Or.... anything that is defined as 'Rape' is automatically 'serious'.

Anyone who is so insensitive as to use the line '...Victoria Derbyshire f*cks' rape victims is really a bit of a tool.

I think this is just falling victim to the same issues as arguing about Ken's words.

Bingo

See, in the context of the interview that's not the message at all. It also seems at odds what some of his defenders here have been saying.

Something I think everybody has missed - and I don't think I've seen pointed out anywhere - is that sentences are already discounted for guilty pleas (if not as much as proposed) and that the wonderful 5 year average sentence stat already includes that. So Victoria is fundamentally wrong with her suggestion that rapists will be out after 15 months under these new proposals.

Mrs was watching loose women while I've been trawing through these 6 pages, the presenter was saying it makes a mockery of the justice system if they are allowed guilty plea bargains....erm all crimes (afaik) get to lea guilty and get a discount. Ester rantson (sp?) enlightened her but pretty stupid of the person chairing the discussion.

The serious scale mentioned before is a useful argument, and I think he [i]meant[/i] well but he seems to have used some incredibly stupid words phrases that will have upset people. Whether thats worth his resignation I dunno.
"Rape is rape" "no it's not" did that actually happen? shakes head

"Rape is rape" "no it's not" did that actually happen? shakes head

Instead of vilifying someone who is trying to make a change for the good and who used some ill chosen words while being harassed by a very rude interviewer, wouldn't it make more sense for these 'outraged' people to work with him towards a common goal?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770 ]Full transcript here[/url]

I don't think its a resignation matter. The grovel he has already done will do

Clarke: Well, I must stop you repeating this total nonsense…assuming you and I are talking about rape in the ordinary conversational sense. Some man has forcefully, with a bit of violence.

So its only rape if violence is used?

. Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape.

No its not.

Most amusing cartoon in today's Times.

Ken Clarke, suspended in mid-air, hung by his own tie. Held in his own hand.

Over the top it says:

"Give him enough rape..."

I laughed so much I nearly stopped.

[quote=Clark]And a serious rape where, you know, violence and an unwilling woman,

See this line, seems to be quite clearly how he defines serious rape. It implies that these are two criteria. Doesn't it?

I can't believe people are still bickering about whether there are degrees of rape!

Is the violent rape of a virgin female or heterosexual man the same as the rape of a drunken victim who could not give consent (because they were blotto), but who had invited the rapist back to their place to carry on with the heavy petting they had been doing in the evening?

I'm reminded of a quote by Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Cooper:

“…those who latch on to an unreasonable notion and thereafter refuse to listen to any further discussion of it have problems that are more amenable to psychiatry than to argument.”

Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape.

No its not.

Did we ever get a proper reference for that, because I have it on good authority that it is.

Some clarification [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6162724.stm ]HERE[/url]

"Anybody has sex with a 15-year-old, it's rape.

No its not.

Did we ever get a proper reference for that, because I have it on good authority that it is. "

Me ages ago but again Section 9 Sexual Offences act 2003 the offence is sexual activity with a child carries a max of 14 years and is not rape.

This used to be called Unlawful sexual Intercourse. Never has been called statutory rape in this jurisdiction

to clarify ,sex with a child under 13 is rape regardless of consent or mistake as to age.

Even the Guardian isn't jerking their PC knees as much as some in this thread. Quite a fair summary I think.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/s2KcY_8loL1brs3DWvGDm6g/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/may/19/editorial-kenneth-clarke-rape-sentencing&cat=commentisfree

Good grief, I might have to start buying The Guardian!

Woody, I get what he was trying to say and I see his point seriousness of the incident, aggravated etc but the message anti rape campaigners have been trying to get across (afaik) is "no means no" and "rape is rape" so as the transcript says
"Derbyshire: Rape is rape, with respect.

Clarke: No it's not..."
That is pretty bloody damning, despite KCs agenda and point that interaction alone is very [b]very[/b] badly worded if not downright unforgivable.

I wonder if the same points are going to be made/remade for the rest of time?

Donk

I see your point and agree, as I have already pointed out, that Clarke gave a very poor performance. In his defence, I believe when he said that, he was referring to different degrees of rape and not, as some have tried to infer, that some rape is not serious, a point which he rectified later in the interview.

but the message anti rape campaigners have been trying to get across (afaik) is "no means no" and "rape is rape"

Why are you ranting about anti- rape campaigners? I assume you are anti -rape? I assume they have a number of rape victims active so I am not sure you will be the best person to talk to them about the semantics or otherwise of being a rape victim.
The offence will always be rape the variation in sentence does not prove rape is not rape. All it proves is that sentencing varies in rape cases. Whether this is the correct thing to do or not is another topic.
Those folk are not on a high horse it is just as your knuckles scrape the ground as you walk along you are left looking up at everyone.

OK here's an interesting one for which I will no doubt get flamed.

There is reporting of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss Kahn apparently making lewd remarks about a female cabin crew member on a flight, and that he 'propositioned' other women at the hotel where the alleged incident happened.

Now it's funny that this widespread reporting of hearsay which appears to complete the picture of him being a horrible pervert/rapist is seemingly ok - a little bit like defaming the character of a woman in a rape case by making her out to be 'up for it' etc?

Shouldn't it just be about the evidence of the case not trying his general character in the media? I don't have much sympathy for the guy, I just find it odd.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/strausskahn-more-hotel-staff-propositioned-2287456.html