Plead guilty and get less time? Give the police and CPS more convictions. To hell with innocence.

It astonishes me that people complain because rape convictions are "too low" ?

Errr ... perhaps these people are simply not guilty ?

And the most STOOPID signs in the world. Rape is rape. Like MURDER IS MURDER - no, sometimes it is not. We still do not know who killed Jill Dando. People cry RAPE when they have not been raped (and sometimes when they have). And the bimbos holding simplistic slogans do serious damage to REAL rape victims.

And Ken Clarke should not even consider apologizing when no brains misinterpret his remarks (to get a GOOD STORY).

Ken Clarke is right that some types of rape were less serious than others. The Law is not clear enough, but some People just react rather than think. To the "great unwashed" the world is just black and white with no grey areas. I hope Ken Clarke sticks to his guns.

What's the difference between a man using his superior physical strength to terrify a woman and have sex with her against her wishes, causing her immense psychological and physical harm and a 16 year old guy having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
They both qualify as "rape". One is more "serious" than the other. Guess which one. Simple, no? But...
This thinking is apparently sick because all rape is "equally serious". The government says so, the print media says so and so does the broadcast media, and all Clark's attempts to clarify his thinking (which, I think, is the same as that laid out in the first paragraph) meet with what can only be described as politically motivated semantics.
Bollocks to them all. They're all as sick as those they want to lock up.

Sorry I forgot to mention Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who are also complicit in the stupidity.

Not Convinced By The Media wrote:
What's the difference between a man using his superior physical strength to terrify a woman and have sex with her against her wishes, causing her immense psychological and physical harm and a 16 year old guy having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
They both qualify as "rape". One is more "serious" than the other.

Its Extremely rare that a 16 year old boy would be convicted of rape, if he had sex consentiously with his 15 year old girlfriend. Common sex would usually prevail in these cases. I do agree with Clarke though for once, that are varying degrees of rape, just like any other crime.

Courts are nothing more than institutionalized lynching mobs given the illusions of respectability. They only want to punish people, not cure crime. I mean, what would these scumbag lawyers and self-righteous judges do without it?

"Its Extremely rare that a 16 year old boy would be convicted of rape, if he had sex consentiously with his 15 year old girlfriend. Common sex would usually prevail in these cases."

That proves my point, they are {and always have been) treated differently. Very much differently. But the media and the politicians want to present themselves as being equally tough on a crime which they tell us is always equally serious. Interesting Fruedian Slip incidentally. Stupid. superficial and intended for Public Consumption Only.

Who were those lunatic women on BBC Newsnight last night talking about rape? They gave women a bad name. Were they feminists or just thick?

It's rather ironic that those women in the media who are making so much of the controversy seem to think that rape only happens to women, so their outrage at Clarke's 'dinosaur' views is a little compromised.