Some rapes are more serious than others it seems

According to Ken Clarke

Yeah thats what was worrying me about earlier comments.

Another gem from your wonderful Lib / Conservative alliance

And the home secretary is of course listening to the Police force .............

Sorry ... back on track I suppose

So .... what do you do when you can no longer guarantee a fair trial???

Well there lies the problem, whatever he does he is doomed, whatever she does she is tainted by her actions and she will be watched like a hawk to see what she does in the aftermath of the trail. The job of the media running the world I guess.

You obviously miss the point.
Fair enough all rapes are very serious, but does consensual sex with a female say one day under the age of consent deserve the same sentence as that involving an unwarranted violent attack or even date rape where the female may have given an initial impression of consent ?
All are clearly very wrong but should the sentence system consider them all in much the same light as appears to be the case at present ?
Surely there is a case for increasing the present sentences for those cases involving serious violence.

The previous govt was very weak on the subject and in favour of plea bargaining and reduced sentences, in the forlorn hope of more convictions.

Don't tell me it's one of those..."I'm sorry madam, this cheque has bounced!"

"What? I've been raped".

I suppose technically tho that would have been rape......

I refuse to take what a drug pusher says seriously.

Mr Clarke should also be aware that there is a statutory defence to unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under 16 that is if the male is under 24 has no previous similar convicton and had reaonable belief that the female was 16 or over. Of course if the female is not 16 then any consent technically can not be lawful. But this of course has nothing to do with this case. Like someone else says only the 2 persons involved know the truth, it is up to the courts to decide.

As I understood it, the present government is advocating plea bargaining to get lower prison time for rapists in exchange for reducing the cost involved to them of last minute guilty pleas. Thats being tough?

No - he said quite clearly that it was to avoid the trauma of the victim having to appear in court.

Which is fair enough for sure .... but the initial reports were saying that it was because it cost a fortune for the system to take them right up to the court case date, when just before they reached it a guilty plea was made

When a rape trial depends on the question of consent it can get very confusing. Can a woman who freely gave her consent to begin with change her mind once intercourse started?

She might have good reason to ask the man to stop, but what if he doesn't, especially if it's quite late in the proceedings?

Very good point HBG.
Surely that is less serious, (but still serious of course), than an extremely violent attack which causes severe injuries and long term trauma.
Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about regarding Clarkes remarks ,other than dodgy politicians and others , trying to use the subject as a political football..

Yeah, like when the filth get taken to court, and make a settlement at the court doors, WITH OUR ******' MONEY.

Apparantly if you are drunk and have sex, the woman can claim rape because she was fuddled with booze, but men can't caim the same.