This made me so, so furious. There are still serious issues around how rape victims and rape itself is treated/viewed, and this really says a lot about that. Grrr,

NOT that I condone what he said but I think I can see what he was trying to say. All rape is serious but I can see that the circumstances of a rape will dictate the sentence (to an extent). A statutory rape where a 17 year old has "consenting" [i.e. if they were both over 16 it would be consenting] sex with a 15 year old is clearly different to a situation where there is an unprovoked violent attack. Of course there should always be consent from the woman (or man, depending on circs) but I can see that there *are* some grey areas. To proceed once consent has been withdrawn is serious but I can see how it can happen. I am not saying I am condoning rape. Or that it's not serious. Just that I can see the grey area.

It is important that education is given as to the subtlies of consent and that consent must be informed - if the person from whom consent is required is too scared or too drunk or too whatever to say yes and mean it, I think it is better to assume that consent is withheld. Consent should be a positive affirmation not a lack of saying no.

I think Mr Clarke could do to think before he speaks though. Would save him a lot of time. That said, it's drawn a lot more attention to what he was saying.

Argh - I know. I get what he was possibly 'trying' to say, but he didn't actually say that...

What REALLY gets to me is that sentences are going to HALVED if someone pleads guilty. Trying to up sentencing figures much?

On a completely different note, I love that sculpture so much. It is incredible - have you seen it? xx

Fuckwit.

YES.

He just totally did not think about what he was saying at all!