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, 2 replies)

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)