Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

Recommended Videos

Spirultima

New member
Jul 25, 2008
1,464
0
0
"Ignorance is a curse that the gods themselves struggle with in vain" - Friedrich Schiller

So what they are saying is a paedophilia rape is equal to that of a grown man/woman being raped?

Both cases are severe, but Paedophilia is basically destroying or heavily damaging a life before it really sets off, there by causing huge amounts of suffering over a prolonged period, this much we all know, but the difference is, one is more damaging then the other, the grown adult can understand what happened better and in the most cynical sense has already had a life, the child on the other hand has neither benefits (Well maybe not the cynical reason, that's hardly a benefit).

So basically, one is more severe then the other and should be seen as such and punished as such.
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,653
0
0
BringBackBuck said:
As a politician, Justice minister at that, he should really have chosen his words better.
Breaking News: British Politician says something to get themselves in the shit!

I think although the law is the same for all rape crimes judges and juries tend to be a little more lenient on people who are pulled up on some technicality than for violent sexual abuse crimes. I think at the end of the day what he's saying is still right, but it could have been phrased much better.

Still better than Nadine Dorries though.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
The funny thing is with statutory rape is that it says minors can't make up their mind either way, not just in a positive way. If that is so, then they can't either give consent or not give it. Meaning that it can be argued that a minor can't be against anybody having sex with them, EVER. Yes, having sex with them would still be illegal...but under the law a minor can have no strong feelings against having sex with absolutely anybody.



Doesn't that sound incredibly wrong or is it just me? Aren't we treating minors like severely handicapped people?




As for the whole coercion thing, many many many adults get fooled into sex and then discarded, if something is wrong and should be illegal, it shouldn't be completely legal for most people. I can see there being exceptions to the rule but the fact of the matter is the rule has less applications than the exceptions.
 

BringBackBuck

New member
Apr 1, 2009
491
0
0
Zantos said:
BringBackBuck said:
As a politician, Justice minister at that, he should really have chosen his words better.
Breaking News: British Politician says something to get themselves in the shit!

I think although the law is the same for all rape crimes judges and juries tend to be a little more lenient on people who are pulled up on some technicality than for violent sexual abuse crimes. I think at the end of the day what he's saying is still right, but it could have been phrased much better.

Still better than Nadine Dorries though.
Nadine Dorries? Let me just google that...

Children are abused because they don't say "no" forcefully enough? What the fuck? Where do they find these people?
 

FightThePower

The Voice of Treason
Dec 17, 2008
1,716
0
0
I do agree with him, but to be honest I don't think statutory rape should even be categorised as a form of rape. I mean technicially it is - you have to be 16 in the UK to be able to give consent to have sex, and if they're 15 they aren't able to give consent therefore all sex is forced. But the idea that someone is incapable of making a decision to have sex because they aren't 16 is just absurd; technicalities, honestly.

Of course if one of them's 12 or something then fair enough, but that's exactly what the guy said - circumstance is crucial. I don't really think there are many, if any, moral absolutes.
 

Pedro The Hutt

New member
Apr 1, 2009
980
0
0
awesomeClaw said:
And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.

I can get some things (Not driving a car, not being able to have my own house etc) but why sex? I am physically ready to have sex. It is up to me, AND ONLY ME to decide if I´m ready mentally. Not some goverment prick.

But we need to have some limits. A 12 year old is likely not physically ready to have sex. Therefor, they may not.
Your average 13 year old might be physically ready, but mentally ready is a whole other issue. And if you lower the age of consent to 13 you're removing all possible legal defences a 13 year old has against being tricked into having sex even though they are not mentally ready for the deed, let alone the consequences that can come out of it (pregnancy, STDs etc). Not to mention you basically allow every person with a bizarre fetish of having sex with boys or girls barely into puberty to try their luck with them, because hey, it's legal.

And finally, I'll let you know that odds are very likely that you'll think completely differently about this when you're 15, and by the time you're 18-20 your way of thinking will probably have changed again. Which is part of the reason why the age of consent is 16 in most countries, the very way that you think changes drastically during puberty.
 

Valdus

New member
Apr 7, 2011
343
0
0
awesomeClaw said:
And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.

I can get some things (Not driving a car, not being able to have my own house etc) but why sex? I am physically ready to have sex. It is up to me, AND ONLY ME to decide if I´m ready mentally. Not some goverment prick.

But we need to have some limits. A 12 year old is likely not physically ready to have sex. Therefor, they may not.
So you're 13 right? So what will happen if you (assuming you're female) get pregnant? (or get someone else pregnant if you're male). Will you raise the child? Would you be willing to do so without any help? It's not a coincidence that the legal age of consent for sex is also the age you can legally own a house and demand minimum wage from an employer.

Besides that there are other factors. Even if you are physically capable of sex at 13 doesn't mean you're ready emotionally (hell I know a few people in their 30's that I wouldn't class as emotionally capable). Theres already a lot of pressure on teens and making sex illegal until 16 in Britian provides a nice excuse for those not wanting to admit they're not ready yet. I know I sure wasn't ready at 13 and I'm glad I waited. I can't even begin to think what would have happened if I had sex at that age and gotten someone pregnant.

Teens already have a strong reputation for being reckless and not really caring about consequences - after all how many teens drink and do drugs despite them being illegal? At least keeping the actions illegal provides some incentive to not do them.
 

mightybozz

New member
Aug 20, 2009
177
0
0
Fortunately, crimes are sentenced according to their severity already. What the Justice Minister was trying to discuss was reducing sentences for less severe offenders. Of course, he phrased it incredibly stupidly.

The real problem behind all this is that "rape" is too broad an offence. If, as the Minister had to, you can say that some rapes are pretty minor, that suggests to me that the offence itself is far, far too broad. No consenting 15 year olds should ever be prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register for rape.


Also, "statutory rape" is a nonsense phrase for the UK. The offence of rape is found only in statute, in the Sex Offences Act 2003. There is no common law offence of rape anymore, so saying "statutory rape" is tautologous.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Russian_Assassin said:
So... a situation in which person that is not 18 having sex with another person that is not 18 is considered rape? Man... everyone I know, including my self, used to be a rapist! And not only did they rape, they were being raped AT THE SAME TIME as well! My mind is officially blown.

And honestly the idea that 15 year olds can not have consensual sex boggles my mind! I would actually dare someone to make this sound logical, but I'm afraid that it would start a flame war or something, so I'll leave it at that.

Still though, if people under the age of 18 are considered retards who can't wipe their asses by themselves, then why let them out of the house? Why not keep your children locked up in an airtight vault until they are considered (that's right, CONSIDERED) adults?
There was a kid in my state that went to jail for just that. I can't remember his age at the time of the incident (I want to say he was 16 or 17). So, he and some friends had sex with a girl that was 15 or 16. The problem is that when I say sex all he did was receive oral, while his friends all did the dirty deed. Well, the authorities learned of this, and end up arresting the whole group of boys. All of his friends took plea deals, but he didn't. He went to trial and got convicted. He actually spent a few years in jail under the law, while none of the others did. And this was all because the legal system misused a particular law that was intended to punish child molesters (this was all when Chris Hansen was confronting them on TV). Even the legislator who authored the law said it wasn't intended to punish young stupid kids like this. So, yes, it does happen.

Anyway, it's things like this that make me think extremists in any view should be ignored by everyone.
 

awesomeClaw

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,831
0
0
Valdus said:
awesomeClaw said:
And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.

I can get some things (Not driving a car, not being able to have my own house etc) but why sex? I am physically ready to have sex. It is up to me, AND ONLY ME to decide if I´m ready mentally. Not some goverment prick.

But we need to have some limits. A 12 year old is likely not physically ready to have sex. Therefor, they may not.
So you're 13 right? So what will happen if you (assuming you're female) get pregnant? (or get someone else pregnant if you're male). Will you raise the child? Would you be willing to do so without any help? It's not a coincidence that the legal age of consent for sex is also the age you can legally own a house and demand minimum wage from an employer.

Besides that there are other factors. Even if you are physically capable of sex at 13 doesn't mean you're ready emotionally (hell I know a few people in their 30's that I wouldn't class as emotionally capable). Theres already a lot of pressure on teens and making sex illegal until 16 in Britian provides a nice excuse for those not wanting to admit they're not ready yet. I know I sure wasn't ready at 13 and I'm glad I waited. I can't even begin to think what would have happened if I had sex at that age and gotten someone pregnant.

Teens already have a strong reputation for being reckless and not really caring about consequences - after all how many teens drink and do drugs despite them being illegal? At least keeping the actions illegal provides some incentive to not do them.
Hm. You´ve got a point there, mate. I mean, if I were a female, an abortion would be a solution. But since I´m male, that wouldn´t work. (And before you say it, I do not see an abortion as something substantial. More like getting rid of a zit. I´d hurt for a while, but I wouldn´t be sad over the things that the zit could of become if I hadn´t popped it.)

Yes, I´ll get back to you on that point, ok?

But the other 2 argument I disagree with.

So? If you´re not ready, just say so. Nobody with sense will think any lesser of you. And if someone does, then they weren´t worth your time in the first place. At least in my opinion.

And if someone is reckless, then they will fuck up, learn their lesson and eventually be a better person later. (Or die.) Instead, inform the effects of alcohol and drugs on the body and let them decide for themselves.

But I feel that I am ready and I should be allowed to do as I please in that respect. Not everyone is like you, pal. But of course, lack of oppurtunity and all that is currently setting me back.
 

awesomeClaw

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,831
0
0
Pedro The Hutt said:
awesomeClaw said:
And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.

I can get some things (Not driving a car, not being able to have my own house etc) but why sex? I am physically ready to have sex. It is up to me, AND ONLY ME to decide if I´m ready mentally. Not some goverment prick.

But we need to have some limits. A 12 year old is likely not physically ready to have sex. Therefor, they may not.
Your average 13 year old might be physically ready, but mentally ready is a whole other issue. And if you lower the age of consent to 13 you're removing all possible legal defences a 13 year old has against being tricked into having sex even though they are not mentally ready for the deed, let alone the consequences that can come out of it (pregnancy, STDs etc). Not to mention you basically allow every person with a bizarre fetish of having sex with boys or girls barely into puberty to try their luck with them, because hey, it's legal.

And finally, I'll let you know that odds are very likely that you'll think completely differently about this when you're 15, and by the time you're 18-20 your way of thinking will probably have changed again. Which is part of the reason why the age of consent is 16 in most countries, the very way that you think changes drastically during puberty.

Oh, "tricked into having sex". You cannot say someone is "tricked" into having sex unless the person they were having sex with was not the person they thought they were having sex. Otherwise, it was a mistake, and what do you do with mistakes you can´t fix? You learn from them.

And? So what if older people try their chances? Who cares?

And yes, perhaps I will think diffrently. Perhaps I might think my whole argument for this was stupid and never be able to see why I thought that. But that doesn´t mean that all the things I do and say now don´t have any weight.
 

VendettaNola

New member
Jun 18, 2010
12
0
0
Dulcinea said:
Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.
Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.
 

VendettaNola

New member
Jun 18, 2010
12
0
0
Dulcinea said:
Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.
Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.
 

tahrey

New member
Sep 18, 2009
1,124
0
0
I'm sort of torn over this issue... and you have to step carefully as it's a very emotive case, much like that of child abuse and the like - if you say anything that could even be slightly misconstrued as supporting the offence in question, you're going to have several thousand shades of shit ripped out of you before you even finish the sentence.

Case in point is Ken Clarke. I'm no fan of the man, I think he's a good example of all the things that are bad about the "old" tories. Elitist, highly patronising, often part of the last remnants of the old-money upper class, unapologetic, unable to take criticism seriously, etc. Just a wibbly, snobby, 5ft 10 bipedal penis in general. And he's displayed enough of those "qualities" during the event in question and during the resultant backlash. Certainly hasn't done himself any favours.

But, I can see where he was - hopefully - trying to come from, before suffering that epic case of foot-in-mouth. To whit: we have various degrees of murder (1st thru 3rd plus manslaughter, and some associated offenses e.g. death by dangerous driving), corresponding to the level of intent, and the trauma inflicted on victims. Why not for other crimes, such as sexual assault?

And given that so many rape cases (seriously, it's a depressingly huge proportion) end with no verdict being passed down for want of evidence at the trial - and the defendants staying utterly tight lipped until that point because they know the choice is either getting off scot-free, or being sent down for quite a long time - what would be wrong with tempting them with a lighter, albeit guaranteed sentence, for fessing up before it goes to court? You then have the bastard, in jail (still for a good 7 years), off the streets, in a place where he's probably going to suffer a couple of unwanted intrusions of his own once the Ordinary Decent Criminals find out what he's REALLY in for - and then on the sex offenders register for probably the rest of their life...
No-one who IS innocent and has a shred of sense would own up - but some of the guilty might. It's not so much a choice between having them sentenced for a full term, or a half one; more like guaranteeing the half term, or running a serious risk of them not being jailed at all, and being back out free as the wind (and bearing a grudge) once the trial's up.
 

Aesthetical Quietus

New member
Mar 4, 2009
402
0
0
It's been mentioned several times but there are different laws for these occasions. Sex with a minor and rape. There are very rarely cases that someone will be charged with Rape for a non-eligible-consensus in what I've seen. That is, it's rare for someone to be charged with rape when they have co-erced a minor to have sex with them. [Depending of course on the age of the victim.]
 

tahrey

New member
Sep 18, 2009
1,124
0
0
VendettaNola said:
Dulcinea said:
Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.
Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.
Quite a lot of them bizarrely. If, as a man, you are... e.g. drugged with rohypnol, or tied up, or simply overpowered by a woman who is stronger than you (not actually that far outside the bounds of reality, particularly if she goes to the gym more often) and forced into congress with a woman you'd really rather not be bumping uglies with.... you're going to find it a hell of a lot harder to successfully bring any charges against her. For a start, there's the much lower chance of having any physical evidence... and a lot of barristers, judges, jury members simply don't believe such a thing is even possible.

(and that's just considering the straight lying-back-thinking-of-england whilst being bounced on top of possibilities - there's plenty more varied sexual abuse that can be visited on a person of either sex besides)
 

VendettaNola

New member
Jun 18, 2010
12
0
0
Dulcinea said:
VendettaNola said:
Dulcinea said:
Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.
Who's looney tune laws say men can't be raped? That's not only UBER sexist, but ridiculous.
It's the way the law is written; you simply cannot be convicted of raping a man, as rape is legally "Penetrating a woman against her will." It's not a joke. It's sad, yes. But true.
In what country? Because I'm from Canada, and lemme tell ya, the law in no way shape or form excludes men as victims or females as perpetrators.

I will wholeheartedly agree that men are badly unsupported if they legally try to bring a rape case against a female, even if they were drugged. Gentlemen in this position are going to have a hard time of it, however, the law absolutely does not sexually discriminate.
 

the D0rk One

New member
Apr 29, 2010
154
0
0
Tips_of_Fingers said:
People need to remove their blinders and just think for a second before turning to outrage whenever someone makes a point about a contentious issue.
Most people don't think. It's against most peoples' nature

OT: some people ask for it.