Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken Clarke: “No it’s not”

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG Ken Clarke – what a disgrace from a govt minister

RT @jossgarman: RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

Ken Clarke has GOT TO GO http://bit.ly/jdcTYO

Hmm… #KenClarke gets tounges wagging this morning @catch21p… what will #DavidCameron do?!… very intresting #PMQS: http://t.co/wZnj1HR

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken Clarke: “No it’s not” – http://bit.ly/jloVuo

Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken Clarke: “No it’s not” – http://bit.ly/jloVuo

Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken Clarke: “No it’s not” – http://bit.ly/jloVuo

RT @TheRightArticle Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken #Clarke: “No, it’s not” http://t.co/dfIohhX

RT @TheRightArticle: Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken Clarke: “No it’s not” – http://bit.ly/jloVuo

In our legal system, date rape is a less serious offense than forcible or violent rape. Clarke is a lawyer, I think he knows what he’s talking about. What’s more, he’s probably the most liberal justice secretary we’re likely to get from the Tories.

Shamik Das – I listened to that interview on Radio 5 Live and have to agree to a degree with Ken Clarke. We need the equivalent of 1st and 2nd degree murder for this terrible crime.

And before all the Labour zombies start shrieking in their shrill tones read my remarks please.

1. Anyone under 16 cannot legally consent to sex and it is classed as rape if a person at that age has consensual intercourse with a partner who may be only one day older. That is not the same as a woman being grabbed and gang raped in the bushes.

2. Date rape is not the same.

3. A wife refusing sex with her husband (obviously not a muslim woman who has no refusal rights and her husband has the right to beat her with a stick if he wishes) is not the same.

Rape is a horrendous crime and what angered me about Ken Clarke’s comments was the fact the sentences for this horrible crime are so low. Ken Clarke forgets that prison works. If a rapist is imprisoned he cannot commit more rapes.

Lock the bastards up and throw away the key I say and ignore Ken Clarke…

RT @tamsinchan: RT @TheRightArticle Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken #Clarke: “No, it’s not” http://t.co/dfIohhX

Rape conviction rates also *still* crazy low. Anyone else get the feeling Clarke has NO IDEA what he's talking about? http://bit.ly/mMphyb

Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken Clarke: “No it's not”: Clarke made his controversial comments in … http://bit.ly/kUBSix

What struck me was how utterly feeble Miliband was at PMQs. Cameron came from that exchange rather well, when he shouldn’t have, and Miliband looks increasingly like a lame duck.

Clarke will survive this – especially seeing as Ed the Duck “demanded” his sacking.

Prison works.

This insensitive gaffe has understandably attracted widespread criticism. But surely this isn’t the main reason why Clarke should go. The far bigger issue is his department’s policy, entirely contrary to his party’s manifesto, which advocates shorter sentences for criminals.

That policy is more likely to do serious harm to the public than crass statements made in radio interviews.

I didn’t hear the program this morning, and so I will admit that I am playing catch up to an extent.

However, Ken Clark has just given an interview to Nick Robbinson and, by the looks of it, he’s trying to do a U-turn and we can see the skidmarks from here.

No ifs, no buts, rape is rape.

On the question of sentencing, I support to a degree the principle of reduced tarrifs in exchange for an early guilty plea for the reasons he gave, but 50%? I don’t think so. I think reductions should stay as they are now (
33%) for early guilty pleas, and then reduce on a sliding skale the longer it goes on.

I’m afraid this seems to be rather symptomatic of this government’s attitude towards the issue of women and equality. I’m not quite sure what Theresa May is actually doing in her job as equalities minister, but in recent weeks we’ve had the universities minister saying that equal opportunities for women has lead to declining social mobility, we’ve had ‘Calm Down Dear’ gate, and now this. Add this to the fact that the Coalition’s cuts in general are having a disproportionate impact on women and the poorest in society.

We talk about the Lib Dems asserting themselves within the coalition, but judging by what’s happening I think Theresa May needs to do likewise.

So Anon, you *know* that rape by a stranger is worse than rape by someone you know (Date Rape)?
Just because you assume that with rape by someone you know there will be less violence used and the circumstances are somehow more ambiguous. After all if it’s only Date Rape the victim by definition knew their attacker therefore no doubt you feel the victim is somehow to blame?
How about taking into account the trauma of having to face your attacker on a regular basis, the fact that it could easily happen again, the abuse of power or privilege on the part of the perpetrator (which would make the offence more serious if it was a theft or some other crime)

By all means feel free to spend your pathetic existence spouting your boring shite on this and no doubt loads of other sites, but perhaps it would be better if you kept your pathetic opinions to yourself on serious issues in the real world.

RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG

what a non-story – Clarke suggests that “statutory rape” (in his own example, an 18 year old having sex with a consenting 15 year old) isn’t as serious as violent forced rape. It isn’t.

Unfortunately, the right wing press will use this to try and oust one of the more liberal members of the government, who seems to be doing a lot of good work.

RedfishUK – How about you don’t assign some scenario to me that I haven’t said and you actually address the issue being discussed not one of your making. You are making claims about a victim of date rape that you know nothing about. You’re just making up a scenario to suit your flawed position.

How do you know if the people you describe live locally or not? Your comments, perhaps understandable considering some of your previous childish remarks, are typical of the left in knee jerk, ill considered actions.

I made no assumption of a level of violence on a date rape and in fact mentioned that sex with someone below the age of consent may have no violence involved although it is still (rightly) classified as rape.

That is why we have judges Redfish UK and not dogmatic people like you passing sentences.

Do you really have no understanding of our legal system or just want to rant in public forums?

To make the post you have, shows a complete lack of understanding of the complex issues involved here and may I suggest that instead of spending your days dribbling in excitement every time the completely feeble Ed Miliband makes an unintelligible comment in those weird tones, you spend your life getting an education.

Your remarks seem to be severely lacking any type of educated coherence. Grow up RedfishUK – woman have had their lives perhaps permanently damaged and people like you should be ashamed of your comments.

Rape is a serious issue that is not party political and for you to compare one form of rape with another and be so uncaring to not see the difference speaks volumes about your character…

Actually James, from what I’ve seen the right is backing Clarke. It’s the luvie echo chamber of twitter that is seeking to lynch him.

Although I’m Labour I have a reasonable amount of respect for Mr Clark; you don’t get to stay in your seat for 40 years for nothing, but he’s got this totally wrong.

Mr.Sensible – So you think that Labour’s 33% reduction for an early plea is OK but the Tory’s 50% isn’t?

What’s the big difference (apart from the obvious percentages) in the concept?

Labour banged up more and more people and should have just built more prisons to house more criminals and to reduce crime. Clarke is simply wrong on all this…

This probably won’t happen again, but I am in a certain amount of agreement with Anon – a classic example of political and media opportunism regardless of the sensitivities of the subject matter.

Hey Anon – how does it feel to have a left-wing socialist zombie supporting you?

Mr Sensible,

You say ‘you don’t get to stay in your seat for 40 years for nothing’.

Untrue. I can’t see Middlesbrough voting Tory any time soon, neither can I see Henley-on-Thames switching to Labour. Length of time in a job is not always a sign of competence; in fact it can often breed complacency.

Also, I have to agree with Anon E Mouse on prisons. They work and we should build more of them. That would be a better use of taxpayers’ money than, for example, fixing overseas aid at 0.7% or funding exorbitant housing benefit.

@ Robin -

“In our legal system, date rape is a less serious offense than forcible or violent rape”

What on earth are you talking about? Our legal system recognises no such offence as ‘date rape’. A ‘date rape’ is just a rape perpetrated by someone the victim is dating (or, more loosely, is socially acquainted with). There’s no reason to think ‘date rapes’ are less forcible or violent than rapes perpetrated by spouses, or family members, or teachers, or strangers or anyone else.

Miliband and co.’s hypocrisy and ignorance on this today was breathtaking.

There is a clear difference between a thirteen-year-old girl being statutorily, consensually “raped” by her boyfriend of the same age, and conspiratorial gang-rape, violent rape of a child by an adult etc.

This is recognised by the Police, CPS, Judges. And it is the reason why the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

For Miliband and then Cooper after him to fail to acknowledge this is simply obtuse.

They simply lapped up the Daily Mail headline.

It would befit LFF not to join in the hysteria.

The proposal in question was intended to do nothing other than increase the conviction rate with the hope of at once sparing victims from court testimony and cross-examination, before (and sometimes BY), the accused. What on Earth was there for Red Ed to get so upset about?

An early guilty plea can mitigate the sentence in many convictions, at the discretion of the judge. Why should rape differ in this regard?

Rape may be rape. But if there is to be no mitigation, then there cannot, by definition, be aggravation.

If there are to be one-size-fits all sentences, as Mr Miliband presumably wants (since he apparently opposes plea mitigation), there is no incentive for the guilty to confess. The result of this will be more witness-box trauma for victims, and more cases collapsing because of it. Furthermore, there is the risk that juries will fail to convict in anticipation of what they feel to be harsh sentencing.

It is hard to concieve of a more convincing appeal for the rapist vote from the Labour front bench!

Perhaps they should not have got so distressed about the positive unemployment figures?

What a pity for potential victims that Labour leader thought to ignore any of the rationale and waste all six of his questions today trying (and failing) to take the scalp of the Govt’s most liberal Tory.

Shameful – RT @leftfootfwd: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not" http://t.co/2T5J44z

I am amazed by how many people are completely unaware of the law here. Consensual sex involving people over 13 years is not ‘statutory rape’. It would be unlawful sex with a child under 16. Under 13 years of age it would be ‘statutory rape’ insofar as someone aged 12 years or younger is not legally deemed able to consent. What is particularly concerning is that Ken Clarke doesn’t know this.

Ken Clarke and some of the above are seemingly unaware of the sexual offence of “unlawful sexual intercourse”.

Anon E Mouse – crime fell between 1997 and 2010.

#15: I agree with the example you have given, and he did indeed say something along those lines; and if he had left it at that nobody would have been complaining, it is a perfectly valid point; I would in fact go further and say there should be laws allowing activity between minors providing there is an age difference of, say, two years or less.

The outrage is his assertion that “date rape” is somehow OK: date rape being when a partner in a relationship forces the other partner into non-consensual activity. In my opinion it is just as bad as street rape, and it is sad that some people seem to think forcing somebody else into sex is ok if they are in a relationship. Its not!

Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's …: Ed Miliband called on David Cameron to sack… http://bit.ly/jtt1GH

greatly enjoyed this interview, think Clark was misunderstood with hasty and inaccurate conclusions of his listeners and really like hearing Ken Clark!

A few years ago, here in Australia, we had an attack on a young woman by a large group of of young men – the girl was a randomly chosen victim and did not know her attackers. She was on a train going for an interview when she was taken. She was initially raped multiple times in the station toilets, then she was removed to a park (I think) and raped many more times, then she was sluiced down with a garden hose and dumped somewhere. If you were to tell that girl that her ordeal was no worse than that of a date rape victim I think she would disagree. Of course there are degrees of rape just like there are degrees of assault.

Dave Citizen – “Hey Anon – how does it feel to have a left-wing socialist zombie supporting you?”

Seems weird if I’m honest Dave. Glad it’s you though and at least it shows that even socialist zombies can listen to a reasoned argument and realise that in general I tend to be right with my comments on this fine blog.

I’ll have you voting Lib Dem with me in no time Dave…

PJD – That depends on the prosecutor’s assessment of the crime. Yes on your point say with a 15 and 18 year old but where is the line drawn? The discretion is in the charges…

As for crime falling between 1997 and 2010 it dropped worldwide. This was due to better security in domestic homes and vehicles resulting in a drop of offences globally. What’s important here is rape and violent crime and I don’t trust the stats:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-crime-underestimated-for-10-years-971489.html

If crime did fall under Labour it simply reinforces my view that criminals can’t commit crime if they are banged up. Something I support Labour on and not Ken Clarke and this government.

Thanks for making my point for me PJD…

13eastie

“There is a clear difference between a thirteen-year-old girl being statutorily, consensually “raped” by her boyfriend of the same age, and conspiratorial gang-rape, violent rape of a child by an adult etc.”

But as I understand it, consensual sex with a teenage girl under 16 just *isn’t rape* in the eyes of the law – it’s ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’. So Ken Clarke was compeltely wrong to suggest that some cases of ‘rape’ are not ‘serious’ – indeed, are not cases of rape ‘in the ordinary conversational sense at all’ – because the woman is a willing participant.

There’s no such thing as ‘statutory rape’ in our legal system, so *all* rape involves an unwilling victim (or a ‘willing’ victim under 13. strictly speaking).

Ash – I think it depends on the choice of charge by the prosecutor. Something like, is it manslaughter or attempted murder.

I don’t know though but I’d be surprised if Ken Clarke, as useless as he is on this, would have got that wrong…

Mr Mouse, yes I do support the principle of reduced tarrifs for early guilty pleas, for the reasons Mr Clark stated.

But, I do think 50% is too much.

I don’t know what the actual figure should be, but I think we should have a downward sliding skale so that the reduction reduces, if you like, as we go on.

On sentencing as a whole, there’s a debate to be had, but I’ve got a feeling that the current debate and program is motivated by 1 thing; cost cutting.

And he got this one simply wrong.

Mr.Sensible – I agree he got it wrong but not because he wants to CONSULT on the change from 33% to 50% but because he’s being too soft on the crime period.

If this consultation is motivated by cost cutting so what. Costs need to be cut – it’s as good a reason as any and combining austerity with chasing tax avoiding companies, such as The Guardian newspaper group, to make them pay their rightful dues like the bankers can only be a good thing.

Rapists need to be locked up for 25 years and then it may act as a deterrent to the crime of rape.

People then might be frightened to commit crimes because of the consequences they would face. Imagine that…

Ash

Clarke got his words/definitions muddled during live radio. He’s an established barrister and parliamentarian and he’s clarified his comments since. The only sensible commentary should be “There but for the grace of God…”

What is your point?

That all rape is equivalent (and should be penalised just the same)?

That we should not try to raise the conviction rate?

That we should not incentivise rapists to confess?

That complainants should be routinely forced to confront those they accuse in court?

Are these trumped by a slip of the tongue on R5L?

13eastie

Of course none of those things are trumped by Clarke’s comments; the substantial questions on sentencing etc. aren’t affected by this. But I think ‘slip of the tongue’ is too generous. Clarke was factually wrong on the important question of whether the figures for rape sentencing under discussion included cases of teenagers having consensual sex with other teenagers; and given that there just aren’t any cases of ‘rape’ in which the victim is willing, violence isn’t involved etc., it was profoundly offensive of him to suggest otherwise.

Victims of ‘date rape’ already have enough to deal with in terms of feeling they won’t be taken seriously, being made to feel they’re to blame for ‘sending out the wrong signals’ etc., without the justice secretary appearing on the radio to back up the view expressed by Robin @ 1 that “date rape is a less serious offense than forcible or violent rape”.

Ash – You’re being too precious – too PC and not letting the individual cases be addressed by the judge. That’s what he’s there for.

Every case is different and your blunt tool approach, whilst fully understandable for a Labour supporter, just doesn’t cut it in this important crime.

I heard the whole interview from start to finish and simply heard a rude obnoxious radio host (and I listen every single day between Ken Bruce and the Today program) who effectively is not living in the real world.

One of the problems with the left is they tend to grab a specific narrow point and argue it to the nth degree instead of seeing the big picture.

Just as there are different types of murder – for example the long term battered wife who lashes out after years of abuse there are differences in the crime of rape.

Personally I’d sack Clarke for leniency and stop this 33% nonsense…

Anon

I have not suggested a ‘blunt tool’ approach. I accept that some rapes are more serious than others (because there are aggravating factors) and that judges are there to ensure that an appropriate sentence gets handed down. What I don’t accept is that some rapes are not really rapes at all ‘in the ordinary conversational sense’ because there’s no violence involved and the victim is not unwilling. That was what Ken Clarke implied.

I have rather more personal knowledge of two particular rape cases than I’d like: one in which the attacker was a predatory serial rapist who avowedly ‘got off’ on the power trip of forcing himself on unwilling women, and one in which the attacker was a drunken idiot who pushed his luck with a woman he met in a nightclub and who regretted doing so before he’d even finished. I get that there’s a difference. But the difference is not that one case was a case of ‘serious’, ‘violent’, ‘forcible’ rape of an ‘unwilling’ woman, and one wasn’t. They both were. Every case of rape is.

Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG #ConDemNation

RT @myinfamy: Interviewer: "Rape is rape, with respect"; Ken Clarke: "No it's not": http://bit.ly/mkxYmG #ConDemNation

Ash – I’m not splitting hairs, nor is this a personal attack but Ken Clarke (sack him) was simply not acting in the manner you suggest and (to me at least) there is a difference in the CRIME of rape.

I make no comment on the results from the CRIME of rape, just the action itself.

His choice of words may have been ill judged but Victoria Derbyshire is a Labour supporting lackey who always seems to see fit to hassle people she disagrees with. Hope you enjoyed her champagne when Labour won in 1997 (I certainly did) but a bit more impartiality from her would be appreciated.

Ed Milibandwagon blew it yesterday and the Labour Party must be holding their shaking heads in their hands…

On the cases you mention if both rapists got 25 years they may not reoffend again. Certainly not within 25 years.

@jailhousejade http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/05/ken-clarke-rape-comments/ try listenening to what he said b4 blasting him.

Anon -

“On the cases you mention if both rapists got 25 years they may not reoffend again. Certainly not within 25 years.”

Remind me: which of us is advocating a ‘blunt tool’ approach? I thought you were in favour of “letting the individual cases be addressed by the judge”?

On Ken Clarke’s comments, we seem to have a genuine disagreement about what he was and wasn’t implying. Fair enough.

“(to me at least) there is a difference in the CRIME of rape.

I make no comment on the results from the CRIME of rape, just the action itself.”

I don’t know what you mean, sorry.

[...] Interviewer: “Rape is rape, with respect”; Ken Clarke: “No it’s not” – Shamik Das, May 18th 2011 Share | Permalink | Comments: 2 Comments [...]