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.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn in second sex allegation

Tristane Banon

Dominique Strauss-Kahn appears to be caught between his political ambitions and his history as an alleged womaniser. Only hours after being accused by a chamber maid that she was sexually attacked by the IMF chief, a second accuser has stepped forward. Tristane Banon, the 31-year-old god-daughter of Strauss-Kahn’s second wife Brigitte Guillemette, said he attacked her almost a decade ago. Ms Banon will now tell French detectives about the attempted rape, which took place in an anonymous studio flat in Paris in 2002. Strauss-Kahn lured the then 21-year-old trainee journalist her to the property under the promise of an interview, and then started to rip her clothes off.

‘I kicked him, I called him a rapist, he didn’t seem to care,’ said Ms Banon in earlier interviews, in which she also described Strauss-Kahn as acting like a ‘rutting chimpanzee’. Does she know what a rutting chimpanzee is like? And why did she hold off telling the police before now? Apparently because she was afraid of being 'defined by the story' of being attacked by a senior politician. Not anymore it would appear.

If Mr.Strauss-Kahn has done anything wrong, then it should be dealt with by the courts as appropriate. However, if this is some evil set-up, I'd be the first to admonish those concerned. True victims of rape need assurances that society will be supportive, non-judgmental and provide justice. Saying you were raped or sexually molested in order to gain from it is despicable. And setting others up to say things is as well. I hope nobody is telling porkies!

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387621/Second-woman-alleges-attacked-IMF-chief-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn.html#ixzz1MWVQnNNW

John Leslie fingered again!

John Leslie, the former Blue Peter presenter and daytime chat host, has described an allegation of rape made against him as "totally untrue". He has gone public over leaks to the press.

My concern with this is that it has all the hallmarks of opportunist cash-making. I believe Mr.Leslie is being "framed". Strong words, but there is an element of the dog with a bone here. It is all too easy for certain accusers to think that money will come their way. The tabloid press see no harm in raking over the coals. If Mr.Leslie gets burned, what of that to them. If they can get a "story" it's certainly money for them.

There needs to be a complete overhaul of our social attitudes. Rape victims need to know that they will be given a fair hearing with proper justice. However, we should be equally vigilant against the opportunist money-makers who think a well-known person will make an easy "victim".

Society has muddied the waters between decency and decadency. New Labour has promoted a climate in which sexual morality is a blurred concept. No wonder people have mixed emotions, ranging from petty revenge to clumsy cupboard love. What's in between would make a kaleidoscope blush.

John Leslie's statement