Kenneth Clarke

[mockney piers]

I stand corrected. *note to self - check facts before opining using capital fm phone-in as data source*

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> So are you implying that all statutory rape should

> be considered on the same level of seriousness as

> all violent rape?

that doesn't follow at all from what i've written

[Loz]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > So are you implying that all statutory rape should

> > be considered on the same level of seriousness as

> > all violent rape?

>

> that doesn't follow at all from what i've written

So what you are implying, pk, is that some rapes are more serious than others? Therefore you are also implying that some rapes are less serious than others? But isn't that what Ken Clarke implied?

[pk]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > >

> > > So are you implying that all statutory rape

> should

> > > be considered on the same level of seriousness

> as

> > > all violent rape?

> >

> > that doesn't follow at all from what i've

> written

>

>So are you implying that all statutory rape should NOT be considered on the same level of seriousness as all violent >rape, then?

> I mean, it must be one of the two. Which do you believe, pk?

your logic is warped - it needn't be one of the two (why would all of one category be the same, let alone all of two?)

i don't really know what 'considered on the same level of seriousness' means, but if you're talking about sentences of course i don't think that all cases (even within a category) should receive the same sentences

[Jeremy]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> of course i don't think that all cases (even within a category) should receive the same sentences

I agree, and this is basically how I interpreted the crux of what Ken Clarke was saying. He just made a bit of a mess of it.

[StraferJack]

Pk. You are being weird now. You are simply stating the same as Clarke but denying it

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > of course i don't think that all cases (even

> within a category) should receive the same

> sentences

>

> I agree, and this is basically how I interpreted

> the crux of what Ken Clarke was saying. He just

> made a bit of a mess of it.

Yep, me too. The thing is that I reckon most people believe it, but when someone says, "rape is rape", they nod their heads not understanding the full consequences of that statement.

Rape is so much emotional subject (understandably) that a small logic injection is sometimes needed. Unfortunately, Clarke rather tripped himself up on that front.

[pk]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pk. You are being weird now. You are simply

> stating the same as Clarke but denying it

you're not one for considered thinking you are?

but funnily enough i do agree more with Clarke today than yesterday, when he's said stuff like:

"All rape is serious. It's one of the gravest crimes. My choice of words was wrong"

"As a politician I made a mistake...".

"I phased [sic] it very, very badly"

edited to add the 'sic' - i'm guessing it should read 'phrased' but that's not what the quote i read said

[Loz]

Pk - I'm guessing you don't like Ken Clarke much, no matter what he may or may not have said.

i don't really know what 'considered on the same level of seriousness' means, but if you're talking about sentences of course i don't think that all cases (even within a category) should receive the same sentences

You've said much the same as Clarke, yet you still can't bring yourself to admit it.

[LadyDeliah]

If you look at it logically of course some rapes are more serious than others, but that doesn't mean that you are saying any are not serious.

If you look at the lowest level of rape, eg the 16 yr old with the 15 year old willing partner, even if you thought that was serious, it's obvious that other rapes are far more serious.

By saying that the others are far more serious, you are not necessarily saying that the base level statutory rape of the underage girl is not serious.

The word rape seems to bring about a knee jerk hysteria in some people which makes it very difficult to discuss rape in any kind of rational way.

I am far from a supporter of Ken Clarke, but it does seem that he has been pounced on unfairly on this occasion.

[silverfox]

Rape is horrendous and despicable. However there are degrees of rape in law, as Clarke was trying to explain with his legal distinction.

The problem with rape before the courts is it's very easy to assert, to make the accusation. A bit like accusing someone of racism from the accusation point of view. Such accusations invite much Ill-informed and unjustified criticism and offence.

Such issues are better left to the courts to determine.

[????]

Every so often I try and have a bit of faith in politicians, you know actually think that underneath it all they do try and do what they think is best for the country/society...... and it's always bought back to earth.

Milliband using this as political point scoring by demanding a resignation for a Home Secretary he recently made a point of agreeing with on a liberal stance following not long after Cameron's spitefull attempts to derail GB's attempt gor the IMF job......

....they are really by and large a bunch of tossers aren't they

[????]

and (Jeremy's rule broken note) in the old days I expect they were tossers too but there were some genuine intellects, visionaries and even some great men and women. Now they are just a bunch of vapid, idiot, soundbite driven, professional politician, shisters...Obama being another prime example of the c raters who rule us nowadays.

[Loz]

Now they are just a bunch of vapid, idiot, soundbite driven, professional politician, shisters...

But the question is: is that the fault of the media, picking up every minor gaffe and making a complete song and dance of it? If I was in that position I'd probably stick pretty closely to the script as well.

[StraferJack]

???? - so often considered and wise on many subjects. But when it comes to politics you do seem to short-circuit a little bit

It's not that you are totally wrong, it just lacks the usual perspective

The adversarial nature of the british political system engineers responses like Miliband's. It doesn't make it less disappointing but not only am I not surprised, you could reverse the roles, or swap any names and I would be equally unsurprised. Like you I wish there was someone to rise above it all but if that person exists, the probability is they wouldn't have gotten that far - their proclivity to say the unsayable would have seen them "repositioned" long before proximity to power. Who is at fault for that? As Loz points out the media play a huge role but I point the finger more squarely at the population - a bunch of whining and more importantly, contrary bunch of oiks you couldn't wish to meet. That's me generalising and being unfair of course - but it's true enough

Several factors are also at play in "now vs then". History gives us the long view, and a narrative that doesn't exist for more recent times. And for all the historical weightiness of a Churchill or what have you, I'd rather not have to live through World Wars to benefit from it

Globally too there is a homogenisation- of culture, of values. It's inevitable that politicians will reflect that

And lastly, and somewhat unkindly, I might suggest that as we get older we have reached the stage where these new leaders look too darn young to do the job!

[Huguenot]

pk's response is typical of the problem, and rather bemusing.

The fact is that two enthusiastic, willing and engaged sexual conspirators at the age of 15 years and 364 days is

'rape'. The next day it isn't.

This cannot and should not be confused with rape as it refers non-consensual sexual intercourse.

That's all Ken was saying. I agree with him.

People can find offence wherever they want to, as pk's response clearly demonstrates.

BTW despite Marmora Man's views, Clarkes views on Europe are both inspired and productive, it is merely a shame that right wing politicians with more than a passing resemblance to vegetables have stifled his opinion and gagged his input. 'Little England' has no basis in reality and no future for the people. It's a bizarre delusion in grown-ups and mostly sustained by a craving to divide and conqure the nation.

[StraferJack]

This was my favourite quote from pk:

[Huguenot]

"Fifty years from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and - as George Orwell said - old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist."

Some people still believe this bollocks. That's a tragedy. But what turns it into a catastrophe is that people make political decisions based on this delusion.

Kenneth Clarke was bright enough to understand that.

[pk]

to check out on this one i think

i've said that i don't think that clarke was right to identify 'serious rape' and in doing so imply that there was another type (may be 'petty' rape?)

i said that he was in doing so (in my view) insensitive (he's upset many, it was foreseeable and even he's apologised for this) and/or ignorant (he appears not to know what 'date rape' is)

i stand by this

to all those saying 'but you're saying the same' - of course in some areas i agree with Clarke (e.g. that different individual offences should be dealt with differently depending on the facts, i would've thought this was fairly uncontroversial (although you could argue that Loz's now edited statement suggesting that all of a category should be considered with the level of seriousness might suggest s/he thinks otherwise)). i've not suggested that i disagree with every word (though i do think the delivery's very confusing)

it is possible (even in a short interview) to agree with some areas and think others unwise - so to say that all Ken's saying in the interview is something about 15 year olds having sex is wrong

some of you can't see the trees because of what you've decided the woods look like

sorry if this bemuses you

[*Bob*]

He looked absolutely shagged-out on QT last night.. don't remember seeing him so weary before.

It was warming to see some genuine support - and a refusal to put the absolute boot in - from a panel for whom acknowledging the reality of what he was trying to say seemed more important than winning a point for their team.

[mockney piers]

I too was pleasantly surprised by the measured responses last night.

I can't help but feel that being in wormwood scrubs probably helped prevent a more shrieking vigilante mob reaction, particularly given the shorter sentences nature of his proposal.

[*Bob*]

Melanie Phillips can be a shrieking, vigilante mob all on her own under most circumstances.. but not on this occasion.

Straw won the 'weasel award' on the subject.. though his party line was delivered with an unconvincing and slightly apologetic look.

[Marmora Man]

BTW despite Marmora Man's views, Clarkes views on Europe are both inspired and productive, it is merely a shame that right wing politicians with more than a passing resemblance to vegetables have stifled his opinion and gagged his input. 'Little England' has no basis in reality and no future for the people. It's a bizarre delusion in grown-ups and mostly sustained by a craving to divide and conqure the nation.

Probably better reserved for a different thread - and I suspect Hugenot may have deliberately inserted this to get a rise out of me but ............

I am not, and never have been, a Little Englander. I entirely see and "get" the greater globalisation tide and the need for ever greater co-operation between nations and nationalities. What I do not enjoy or support is the EU soft left, overly bureaucratic and dogmatic approach that leaves little room for enterprise, initiative or personal freedoms, and appears to believe that only an elite political clique can make the right decisions. As a well known libertarian poster on this forum I deplore large and expensive government and the EU is a nightmare example of what I least like in political rule.

[Huguenot]

;-)

Well it was a thread about Kenneth Clarke and his views - and you brought it up first! And yes, of course I was hoping to get a rise.

I don't think the concept of an integrated and consolidated Europe should be confused with frustration at bureaucracy.

Ken said:

"A lot will depend on relations with Europe, because Obama doesn't want his strongest European ally led by a rightwing nationalist.

"He wants them to be a key player inside Europe, and he'll start looking at whoever is in Germany or France if we start being isolationist.

"I think the need to be working with Obama will influence my party on Europe.

"It is still firmly Eurosceptic but it's now moderate, harmless Eurosceptism. It's a bit silly sometimes, like which group do you join in the European parliament, but full-blooded stuff like renegotiating the treaty of accession is as dead as a dodo.

"We've got lots of ideas on European policy on energy, security, relations with Russia, climate change, all that kind of thing [but] somebody like me is far more relaxed about all that [and if the Tories] get into office the pressure of the American alliance will make them more European."

Fairly obvious common-sense rather than 'poor instincts'.

The fact is that a substantial number of the Tory party are petty nationalists, and are willing to exploit xenophobia to the disadvantage of the nation.

Conversely Ken is far more considered.

[Marmora Man]

For more on Europe see Europe, Euroscepticism & the Big State