Google menopause...........When this happens its usually an elderly person having symptoms of menopause were the vulva becomes dry. If you had tried a bit of lub you would have been in there.
But ha ho next time be prepared 
Google menopause...........When this happens its usually an elderly person having symptoms of menopause were the vulva becomes dry. If you had tried a bit of lub you would have been in there.
But ha ho next time be prepared Sponsored Links
He bumbled on (as is his wont), but that was the gist I think...
I wonder how many would say that 'murder is murder', whilst agreeing that sometimes aggravating factors can reduce the sentence - such as someone killing a partner after years of abuse.
If there is an acceptance that one murder can be less 'horrible' than another whilst still calling it murder (and having a conviction saying just that), then I don't see the problem in taking into account the individual circumstances of a rape..
And another thing to consider is that although a 'rapist is a rapist', the judge also has discretion as to the time a person is on the sex offenders register.
If that were made a universal time period, then a consensual but ill timed (age wise) teenager having sex with a willing (slightly underage) partner would serve the same term on the register as a violent offender..
So Judges must always be allowed discretion, although they should (imo) be given guidelines which should make them hand out stiffer sentences where required!
There is though one factor in rape that cannot be equated with murder...one victim is alive, and one is not - and as much as Clarke was a tw*t in the way he said it, I think that to avoid a victim going through another ordeal the offender should be 'rewarded' - give them same sentence lengthwise, but in a lower category prison.
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- 245
- Country
I listened to the interview and apparently if a 17 year old has sex with a 15 year old its classed as rape even if its consensual.
I know its the law, however IMHO that is not the same as rape.
Thats the point he was trying to make.
Having said that, the bloke is a total knob end.
I know its the law, however IMHO that is not the same as rape.
Thats the point he was trying to make.
Having said that, the bloke is a total knob end.
C
cumbriahandyman
It can't be consensual, a girl under 16 17 in NI is considered a child so can't give consent. As far as I am aware, it would not be rape but sexual assault.
However, if a 16 year old girl has sex with a 15 year old boy she would be prosecuted for indecent assault. Though it would be highly unlikely to go to court.
Sponsored Links
Apparently Clarke had it wrong when he claimed that. That would classed as unlawful sexual intercourse. For it to be rape, the child has to be under thirteen.
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- 245
- Country
Ken Clark said it was classed as rape. I'm not sure if it is to be honest but he said it was.
What if two 15 year olds have sex?
The point i was making is i don't think that a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old girl in a loving relationship should be classed the same as some sicko hiding in the bushes waiting for a victim to rape.
I know the law says its not allowed and i'm not saying it should be allowed but i don't believe it should be classed as the same thing.
Thats my opinion
That is what he was trying to say.
What if two 15 year olds have sex?
The point i was making is i don't think that a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old girl in a loving relationship should be classed the same as some sicko hiding in the bushes waiting for a victim to rape.
I know the law says its not allowed and i'm not saying it should be allowed but i don't believe it should be classed as the same thing.
Thats my opinion
That is what he was trying to say.
I agree, that's basically what he was trying to say. But the BBC had some legal expert on later, who stated that he had the age wrong, and set out the position as I described above.
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- 245
- Country
Like i said earlier ....the guy is a knob end.
So that makes my argument null and void
M
Mickymoody
I think that is what Ken Clarke was trying to say, but it came across wrong, if a 15 yo has consectual sex, the 'law' says that is rape, and has been said rape is rape, or if you are having sex, consentually, and whoever says No, and you carry on, then that is rape, which was my earlier frank point, which is very different from being snatched and stripped at knifepoint, and a stranger forces themselves upon you, so it seems rape isn't so clear cut, and the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, but doesn't deter from the fact that rape is a nasty crime. But there are varying factors within it, so a journalist just spun the words wrong, as happens when the written word is processed.
I doubt any sane person would think a 16 year old who makes love with their consenting 15-year-old partner is guilty of the same crime as someone who hides in the bushes with their trousers down.
To be quite honest, I thought the legal system already distinguished between "statutory rape" and "violent rape", but perhaps that is not the case.
One is consentual and in some cases arguably acceptable. The other is not consentual and not acceptable.
If Ken had argued there was a difference between a boxing match and GBH*, people would have thought he was barmy for mentioning it. But because he said "rape", it's a s**t-storm.
*in that a boxing match is two people consenting to punch each other, within rules they agree, with the right to withdraw at any time. On the other hand, GBH is someone getting their head kicked in without their permission and without a means to withdraw.
To be quite honest, I thought the legal system already distinguished between "statutory rape" and "violent rape", but perhaps that is not the case.
One is consentual and in some cases arguably acceptable. The other is not consentual and not acceptable.
If Ken had argued there was a difference between a boxing match and GBH*, people would have thought he was barmy for mentioning it. But because he said "rape", it's a s**t-storm.
*in that a boxing match is two people consenting to punch each other, within rules they agree, with the right to withdraw at any time. On the other hand, GBH is someone getting their head kicked in without their permission and without a means to withdraw.
J
joinerjohn
If a man (over the age of consent ) has sex (even consensual) with a girl under the age of 16, he commits statutory rape (according to the word of the law.. However it all becomes a bit blurred where both partners are under the age of consent.
Courts will look favourably on a couple where the girl is 15 and her partner is a few years older though. Quite a few parents also don't want the police involved anyway (these cases go unreported).
However I think Ken Clarke was trying to make a distinction between cases where extreme violence has been used, compared to cases where sex has begun, then the woman changes her mind (which has and does happen).
Some cases recently have included women who have been so drunk, they couldn't remember whether they consented or not. In these cases , courts would have to consider the whole circumstances. Perhaps there is some truth in what our Ken was getting at. Just a shame that he's hauled over the coals for stating what is fairly obvious.
I still believe however, in all rape cases that both people involved should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached (as opposed to the woman remaining anonymous and the defendant can't)
Courts will look favourably on a couple where the girl is 15 and her partner is a few years older though. Quite a few parents also don't want the police involved anyway (these cases go unreported).
However I think Ken Clarke was trying to make a distinction between cases where extreme violence has been used, compared to cases where sex has begun, then the woman changes her mind (which has and does happen).
Some cases recently have included women who have been so drunk, they couldn't remember whether they consented or not. In these cases , courts would have to consider the whole circumstances. Perhaps there is some truth in what our Ken was getting at. Just a shame that he's hauled over the coals for stating what is fairly obvious.
I still believe however, in all rape cases that both people involved should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached (as opposed to the woman remaining anonymous and the defendant can't)
M
Mickymoody
Even though the law states it is illegal for under 16 to have sexual intercourse, nobody is prosecuted, because it is not in the public interest. I think it is, and 5 years locked up would deter future potential offenders.
J
joinerjohn
Hmm And what would you do with two, fourteen year olds having consensual sex with each other? Would you have both of them locked up, or just the lad?
M
Mickymoody
As, the law currently stands, they are both breaking the law. So both would be locked up. The point is - don't ask me, ask your local politician.
If your daughter had sex and was 14, would you feel comfortable that she can raise a child? As she is a child? The law states that anyone under 16 is breaking the law. Thats rape in law. Don't ask me, ask a politician.
joinerjohn said:
There's a clear case for some real sex education here. They should learn to walk before they run. Learn how to use the rest of their sexual equipment, for now is the best time to do so. I can assure any teenagers reading this that, when you get to my age, you'll be really pleased that you did.
Sponsored Links
