I doubt it was his intention
but Ken Clarke's done a sterling job of trolling the British media in the past couple of days
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:05, 32 replies)

They've behaved like pricks and come out of it looking like such.
It was pretty bloody straightforward, and in their desperation to beat him with it everyone has exposed themselves as the idiots they are.

It's Brass Eye's Nonse Sense all over again.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:08, closed)

As I said on facebook this morning:
Armando Ianucci's going to have his work cut out for him
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:09, closed)

Huh?
You know, I've only been half following this story, but didn't he say that date rape isn't 'serious' rape?

I actually have a lot of respect for Ken Clarke, despite being a Tory politician. And I do think calls for him to step down are a bit much - but isn't that, you know, a totally abhorrent opinion?
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:18, closed)

Part of it was the distinguishing between rape and statutory rape such as consenting sex between a 16yo boy and a 15yo girl
which is technically rape.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:26, closed)

He stated unequivocally and unapologetically that date rape isn't really rape.
That didn't need blowing out of proportion. It was an inately fucking stupid thing to say.

Unless this is you attempting a meta-troll on Clarke's back.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:20, closed)

Yes he said it, but it was more than clear it was the paucity of his expression as opposed to an expression of opinion.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:22, closed)

So what was he trying to say?

(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:25, closed)

see above

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:26, closed)

A Vagabond, you are totally right and I salute you
"Clarke: Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes. But date rapes, as you are quite right to say very old experience, of being in trials, they do vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances. But I've never met a judge who, confronted with a rapist, as you and I would use the term in conversation, would give him 12 months. That would be a crazy sentence."

This is not the opinion I thought he'd given. Shame on the Labour party for being such opportunistic little bastards, calling for his resignation and all that.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:33, closed)

He's drawing an explicit difference between rape by strangers and rape by people known to the victim
with the implicit assumption that rape by strangers is typically worse.

He's a fucking idiot.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:43, closed)

Every case is different
That's why judges have leeway in their sentencing options at their own discretion. If all rapes were the same, we wouldn't need judges.

Having read the transcript I don't think Clarke was advocating one point of view or the other, he was just describing the system as it currently stands.

Still, feel free to jump on the absolutely outraged bandwagon.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Thu 19 May 2011, 17:36, closed)

Where did I suggest that every case wasn't different?
I simply said that he makes an explicit distinction between date rape and rape by a stranger.

Still, feel free to argue against a strawman or accuse me of being irrational with outrage rather than addressing what I've said.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 17:43, closed)

He made no assertion that date rape was easier, he said this, as you've already read above:
"Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes. But date rapes, as you are quite right to say very old experience, of being in trials, they do vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances."

And it's true, they do vary wildly and that's why judges have discretion in sentencing.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 May 2011, 18:09, closed)

"Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes"
I can't really see any way to parse that phrase that does not make a distinction between date rapes and "other" rapes.

Anyway, he's clarified and apologised so, whether he intended that or not, he at least concedes that it is how it could be interpreted.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 19:25, closed)

There is a distinction, otherwise there wouldn't be different terms for them
One is a subset of the other.
Look, they even have separate pages on wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Thu 19 May 2011, 22:06, closed)

Another straw man.
I never suggested the specific term "date rape" doesn't exist.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Fri 20 May 2011, 9:16, closed)

The whole thing's a massive straw man
It's pathetic political point-scoring over very little substance at all
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Fri 20 May 2011, 11:09, closed)

I think it would be reasonable to give Ken the benefit of the doubt on this
The quote is spoken rather than pre-written for a start.

Also, I think he's making a fair point that date rapes can differ in how serious they are and how harshly they should be sentenced, and he explicitly states that at the extreme end of the spectrum, a "date rape can be as serious as the worst rape".

I don't think he is saying that date rape is worse than rape by a stranger. I don't even think that's what he means by "the worst rapes" - I think he's talking about about a premeditated, prolonged attack involving assault and battery, whether the victim knew the attacker or not.

Eugh. Christ, what a subject.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Thu 19 May 2011, 18:20, closed)

Oh dear
and then I saw this, and changed my mind again.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/19/kenneth-clarke-rape-sentencing-law

This is quite a remarkable fuck up for a guy who has ostensibly spent a year looking into the intricacies of sentencing policy,
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Thu 19 May 2011, 21:04, closed)

If this chap has been advising the government on its strategy for 10 years
What was he doing in 2004 when they originally cut sentences by a third in the event of a guilty plea?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Thu 19 May 2011, 22:01, closed)

Balls.
www.b3ta.com/questions/trolls/post1209518
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:40, closed)

Here's a transcript of what he actually said
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770

There is quite clearly a difference between forced, non-consensual sex, at one end of the spectrum, and consensual sex that's legally classified as rape due to the age of the participants, at the other.

Then there's everything else in between.

Saying that one type of rape is less serious than another doesn't mean that the other isn't serious. Unless you're a moron.
( rofl harris, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:29, closed)

There are two references to date rape.
The first is confused terminology - he was talking about consensual sex between people either side of the age of consent.

In the second he is talking about date rape, he claims it is 'confusing' and distinguishes it from 'the worst rapes'.

It's a fairly clear statement that he doesn't regard date rape as being as serious as rape by a stranger. Which is massively out of touch with reality.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:40, closed)

Clarke: And they include date rapes which, eh, date rapes can sometimes be very confusing.

Dunno, I think the above is ambiguous. It's unclear in which way he meant it's "confusing".

However -

Clarke: Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes. But date rapes, as you are quite right to say very old experience, of being in trials, they do vary extraordinarily one from another and in the end the judge has to decide on the circumstances...

Possibly this is what he meant be "confusing" - if drugs or alcohol are involved, it might be harder to prove the absence of consent. But in any case, that's more a problem in ascertaining guilt/innocence.
( rofl harris, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:49, closed)

Quite.
He was a QC. He knows the difference between proving guilt and determining the severity of a crime. At least I hope he does.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 17:19, closed)

Well
I listened to the actual interview, and I have to say it didn't come across as confusing at the time. He used the term date rape in a weird way - seemingly to refer to consensual sex where one person is under the age of consent. He carried that across into the next occurrence when he went on to say that it's up to the judge and it would be crazy for a judge to give a 12 month sentence. Personally I understood that fine, other than that his definition of date rape didn't match with my understanding.

What I did think was odd was where he tried to define a serious rape: "And a serious rape where, you know, violence and an unwilling woman...". It wasn't clear at this point whether he was referring to the statutory rape situation.

What I think should have been explored was that Labour introduced the reduction of the sentence by one third if there was a guilty plea. The caller Gabrielle was clearly complaining about that existing situation, where the accused only gave a guilt plea at the beginning fo the trial and still got a third off. Clarke was consulting on extending that existing situation, but also made it very clear (albeit later) that the guilty plea had to be done at the earliest situation, before trial, which would have avoided the caller's situation. In fact the caller went on to state that even now, under the current sentencing guidelines introduced by Labour, her attacker got out in half the sentence time.

It's a complex subject to explain and Clarke wasn't clear enough but I think the media's jumped on this and made a bigger thing out of it than it should be.
(Smale is stuffed, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:57, closed)

It's also a massive own goal for anyone interested in the better treatment of rape victims
after the drubbing Clarke's had, what politician is going to want to touch this subject with a shitty stick in future?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Thu 19 May 2011, 17:04, closed)

Agreed
And they'll all now adopt the most hard-line position imaginable.
( rofl harris, Thu 19 May 2011, 17:08, closed)

He's been a politician for decades and is one of the canniest around.
The idea that it was an accidental slip-up is bollocks. He knew exactly what he was saying.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:18, closed)

But what does he have to gain from saying it?
Doesn't it make him seem, at the very least, out of touch?

(This thread is making me feel rather dense)
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:24, closed)

He gains nothing except a bollocking
which suggests that it is his actual opinion and rather than a politically expedient statement.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:41, closed)

I agree
...but again, I don't see to what advantage.
(dchurch bah, Thu 19 May 2011, 16:36, closed)