Thursday, 19 May 2011

Clarke, date rape and unlawful carnal knowledge, and DSK

Having read the transcript of Clarke's unfortunate interview on R5, it's clear that much of the fury is down to a misunderstanding. Clarke was making the point that the fully consensual but unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl of 15 by a boy of 17 is classed as rape under English law. The US calls it statutory rape. He was trying to say that sentences for such cases were short, whilst sentences for violent rape were long, but because they were both the same offence, the average rape sentence appeared too short. It was a perfectly sensible point to make. His error was in terming underage carnal knowledge 'date rape'. Several times. Legions of frizzled harridans heard only Clarke saying that date rape was less serious than violent rape.  


Clarke is an amiable old dog who was trying to use common words on a channel used by common people. He was using a vocabulary not his own and got it wrong. This makes him a bit of an old buffer who needs to stick to legal language, not a ravening Atilla leading hordes of despoiling beserkers. This isn't the reason he should resign.


There are further revelations to come about DSK I think. Rapists are serial offenders, and this is because rape is not about sex but about power. Rapists are not men unable to obtain sex. Such men may deliberately target women made vulnerable by social and economic powerlessness - illegal immigrants, non-language speakers, those from cultures where the police are not allies - as being least likely to report it. I'll bet that right now the DA is quietly offering green cards to any Mexican, Haitian or Dominican women violated by DSK who now come forward, for if he is indeed a rapist then such women will have been his previous victims. 

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Raewald: "This isn't the reason he should resign."

He shouldn't resign. He should be defenestrated for his crimes against the United Kingdom.

"amiable old dog" Huh, not one good word to say about Clarke from this quarter.

Anonymous said...

DSK removed by DNA :-)

Blue Eyes said...

"This isn't the reason he should resign."

No. He should resign from Justice because he thinks that, despite the evidence to the contrary, prison doesn't work.

Give him a job advising Boy George, he has a decent record on the economy.

James Higham said...

Two things here. The EPJ has run an explanation of DSK breaking from the "party line" in the IMF and making references to "dark forces".

Also, Sarkozy's film at Cannes, ridiculing him, cooincidentally was showing.

Raedwald, we're also on a mission. Would you write the occasional post for us at Orphans? It would be greatly appreciated. Email in the right sidebar.