whats with all the rape talk on the tv and radio

He did clarify it, he was on the breakfast radio. Saying all rape is a serious offence and that it's deplorable yadda yadda yadda, however like all crime you get varying levels.

Yes he did but now you have rape victims screaming that all rape is the same no matter how it is carried out. Rape is rape.

Perhaps instead of worrying about Ken's proposals they should be lobbying to get the law changed so that there is just one sentence for rape, no matter what the circumstances unlike the current sliding scale we have now. Or don;t these women realise that?
 
i would'nt be suprised if we see some of the news guys trying it on with the wimen and the camera catchs them at it , this is nuts..
 
He did clarify it, he was on the breakfast radio. Saying all rape is a serious offence and that it's deplorable yadda yadda yadda, however like all crime you get varying levels.

I'm saying that he should now state more explicitly what he meant and use better terminology. He perhaps shouldn't have to but I don't think his current approach is really helping the matter. It's a non-story that's been totally blown out of proportion that could be settled quite quickly.


Good article that.
 
Is it anything to do with single mothers raping teenage boys, so they can avoid losing their jobseekers allowance?!
 
They're discussing Clarkes idea of good rape and bad rape.

To be fair, not really his idea. He is/was a lawyer and just defining it in legal terms.

Have a read here:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/

The seriousness of the violation may depend on a number of factors, but the nature of the sexual behaviour will be the primary indicator of the degree of harm caused in the first instance. The extreme youth or old age of a victim should be an aggravating factor.

In addition, in principle, the younger the child and the greater the age gap between the offender and the victim, the higher the sentence should be. However, the youth and immaturity of the offender must also be taken into account in each case. All the non-consensual offences involve a high level of culpability on the part of the offender, since that person will have acted either deliberately without the victim's consent or without giving due consideration to whether the victim was able to or did, in fact, consent. The planning of an offence indicates a higher level of culpability than an opportunistic or impulsive offence

Type/nature of activity: Repeated rape of same victim over a course of time or rape involving multiple victims•Starting points:
•15 years custody
•Sentencing ranges:
•13-19 years custody
•Type/nature of activity:
•Rape accompanied by any one of the following:
•abduction or detention;
•offender aware that he is suffering from a sexually transmitted infection;
more than one offender acting together;
•abuse of trust;
•offence motivated by prejudice (race, religion, sexual orientation, physical disability);
•sustained attack
•Starting points:
•13 years custody if the victim is under 13
•10 years custody if the victim is a child aged 13 or over but under 16
•8 years custody if the victim is 16 or over
•Sentencing ranges:
•11-17 years custody
•8-13 years custody
•6-11 years custody
•Type/nature of activity:
•Single offence of rape by single offender
•Starting points:
10 years custody if the victim is under 13
8 years custody if the victim is 13 or over but under 16
5 years custody if the victim is 16 or over
Sentencing ranges:
8-13 years custody
6-11 years custody
4-8 years custody

So he was basically telling it how it is: sentencing is 4 to 19 years depending on how "serious" the rape is.

EDIT: And who brought the above in? David Blunkett and the Labour party.
 
Last edited:
It's a difficult issue. Rape is obviously incredibly invasive and reduces the victim to nothing more than a meaningless piece of flesh - it's completely understandable that it is viewed as one of the most appalling things that can be done and so it should be taken extremely seriously.

Sadly, it's perhaps one of the toughest crimes to get convicted. First because it's so hard to prove and secondly because it's sometimes so mentally distressing for the victim to appear at a trial that it almost outweighs the cost of going for a conviction. It's completely understandable that those that have suffered sexual assault remain silent until it's too late to gather any reliable medical evidence.

As such, in many ways it makes sense to encourage guilty pleas even if they do mean reduced sentences.
 
A Royal kicking? Like, from HRH?

I think the republicans would have a fit!

I am sure that Prince Philip would oblige, I bet there is life in that old dog yet, enough to give Milliband a scare anyway.

Prince Philip would probably give the republicans a swift kicking while he was at it as well....;)
 
I read the entire transcript of the interview and Ken Clarke did not say anything wrong whatsoever. The stupid bint who was interviewing him seemed hell bent on making tabloid-esque statements ("So you're saying it's ok for rapists to be let out of prison after just over a year?") when he wasn't saying that at all. He defended it well and kept telling her to stop making up sensationalistic headlines that weren't true.

I'm glad he hasn't apologised- because he has nothing to apologise for. Once again, it is the media who is entirely at fault for this hype.
 
Its really rather sad to see the response to this from Miliband. All politicians are the same though, if they just focused on trying to make the country a better place rather than trying to make the other party look bad then we would be in a much better state. Houses of parliment are worse than a primary school playground at times :(
 
Labour have nothing to elevate themselves with so all they can do is try to smear the opposition.
 
As others have said; Clarke said nothing wrong. Perhaps he could've been a bit more tactful.

I'm glad he hasn't apologised- because he has nothing to apologise for. Once again, it is the media who is entirely at fault for this hype.
I hate this kind of thing. Last week there was a story about how research had shown that a lot of young people don't particularly like to drink alcohol. A BBC reporter then asked something along the lines of, "so why do we have this image of boozed up children causing havoc in the streets?" At this point I was shouting at the TV, "because you're a bunch of ***** who like to manipulate the facts for better ratings" (or something to that effect).
 
Back
Top Bottom