Ken Clarke in rape proposal row

Ken Clarke the Justice Secretary

Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, finds himself at the centre of a row because he did not choose his words carefully. His understanding of the cause of the row. He had appeared on a Radio 5 phone-in show. When BBC interviewer Victoria Derbyshire told him "rape is rape", he replied, "No it's not, if an 18-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old and she's perfectly willing, that is rape because she is under age, she can't consent. What you and I are talking about is we are talking about a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

Now legally he is right. And I think most people, if they sit and think about it without any prejudicial thoughts, would have to agree. The two are in no way the same. However, certain people rush to judgement because they have "issues", many of which are quite understandable. However, saying "rape is rape" is meaningless. Each situation arises out of different circumstances. There might be similar traits to the crimes, but they are definitely not all the same.

Quick as a flash Ed Miliband got all priggish and thought he was onto a winner by seeking Ken Clarke's immediate resignation to be followed by the demand for a grovelling apology. This just shows why Miliband is not fit to be prime minister. For him the mantra is a means to an end.

In the same programme the Justice Secretary was confronted by sex attack victim Gabrielle Browne. She said later, "Ken Clarke didn't listen. His comment about not all rapes really being rape was disgraceful for a man in his position, a man of previous ministerial experience and previous experience as a barrister.

"He did not show empathy or understanding. If he can't open his eyes and ears and listen and see life from a victim's perspective then he should resign."

But this is where her natural emotions blinker her understanding of the truth. Ken Clarke's example of distinctions in rape is legally and factually correct. And explaining a legal distinction does not mean one excludes empathy or understanding.

It would appear that the government is seeking to cut costs in trials. One cost cut would be if those charged with rape have the opportunity to plead guilty (if they are so minded) before a trial begins in order to obtain a reduced sentence term. It also means that the main witness does not have to go through the ordeal of a court appearance and the trial costs are reduced.

It all sounds so reasonable to me. If Ken Clarke had chosen his words with efficacious carefulness we would hardly be talking about it.

Read More

Freedom of speech versus freedom of expression?

I'm fairly conservative, but not rampantly so. I believe in a certain amount of live and let live. That's why I say I have a slight libertarian streak. If a theatre producer wants to put on a play about a subject I find offensive, my view is to let him get on with it. However, I won't be paying good money to go and see the production. I'm not in favour of censorship just because something upsets my personal ideas.

However, I would suggest that there are limits such as stopping live bestiality on the stage. These actions require penalties in a decent society. But in the main it's live and let live. Freedom to express an opinion is also freedom to upset or distress. But it should never lead to personal violence or exclusion.

The Government is currently planning to put into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill a clause making a criminal offence of inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Sounds fair enough, but would it be plainly so? Amongst all the jargon and New Labour-speak in this Justice Department leaflet (page 135) is an undertaking not to criminalise religiuos belief or expression. I have to believe that the Government is true to its word in that they are NOT preparing legislation to criminalise orthodox Christian belief that homosexual acts are sinful. I would wholeheartedly concur that those who purport to vilify homosexual orientation by inciting violence and violent acts should receive the penalties of the law.

A group called The Christian Congress for Traditional Values is campaigning against the bill. They say "The Government opposes a freedom of speech clause and says that religious liberty will not be affected. However, the offence is very widely drafted and without an exemption Christians would be prevented from expressing strong opinions." Steady on! Strong opinions? I doubt if Jack Straw would flinch over strong opinions. But he could well do so if agitation was happening that whipped up hatred. I don't see where these "Christians" feel hard done by on this.

The case against the Government over the adoption laws was quite another matter, because there they were trying to force people to go against conscience. Here they are merely trying to outlaw hatred.

I would have thought a traditional value of Christianity is "do unto others as you would like done unto you". But then I'm a poor wretch of Anglo-Catholic and not given to the strictures of a protestant mindset!

Read More

Prisoners get bed-and-breakfast lodgings in lieu of cells!

You couldn't make it up. Not in Gordon Brown's Britain. It's now a country run by the inept and the inadequate. Prisoners abscond, some get let out too soon, others just shouldn't be in prison. The courts have been piling up the flotsam and jetsom of the British social scene, and dispatching them to ageing overcrowded prisons. Although new prisons are being built, little or no attempt is made at joined up thinking.

Now we are told the Ministry of Justice (a New Labour outfit!) has spent £2.39million paying the rent of 339 offenders in B&Bs who would otherwise be in prison, either on remand or finishing their sentences. Are they mixed in with other paying guests? "Got any more porridge, Mrs Johnson?". The very thought. We should should get John Cleese to write a special edition of Fawlty Towers, with a couple of cons taking breakfast, with Manuel serving them!

The whole thing is preposterous. But then New Labour is preposterous. £250 a week to be in bed and breakfast accommodation. A new variation on the hospitality industry, I suppose.

ClearSprings, the private operator of this "scheme", says it provides a "robust" combination of safe and appropriately sourced accommodation, effective housing management, and rigorous support. The very use of the word robust puts the whole thing into a tailspin!

One of these guest houses was in Arundel, in Sussex. Burglars, muggers and petty crooks expected to behave in a genteel manner with the unsuspecting tourist or business traveller. Was it a case of separate tables? Why on earth can't these people in charge think?

I'm all for rehabilitation, all for humane prison time, but a prisoner should serve a proper sentence. "Norman Stanley Fletcher, you are a habitual offender......you will go to prison for five years, but just before the end you get a choice of bed and breakfast accommodation. Here's a brochure! I suggest you read it for the first couple of years and let us know which one you've gone for!"

What a New Labour world it is!

Read More