Question Time tonight

[lyonhibs]

Who is this Katie bint from The Apprentice? What a ghastly 'Little Britain' caricature.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Who is this Katie bint from The Apprentice? What a ghastly 'Little Britain' caricature.

yeah horrible little tory girl.

[Toaods]

Noticed that twice in a row she gave her lengthy point of view to complete silence ....not one single supportive clap.

[steakbake]

She's not just a Tory, she's an überTory. She's kind of like a physical manifestation of the Daily Mail.

[heretoday]

She's got hair like Princess Anne!

QT wasn't very good last night. Edwina's days are gone, Will Self's face is annoying and the two serving politicians could bore for Britain.

[steakbake]

She's got hair like Princess Anne!

QT wasn't very good last night. Edwina's days are gone, Will Self's face is annoying and the two serving politicians could bore for Britain.

Maybe the sound is going on my telly, but did she have some kind of lisp going on last night? I'd never noticed that about her before, but it sounded like her falsers were away to fall out.

Chris Huhne is the sort of person you wouldn't buy a car off. I'd never heard of the Labour guy and he didn't really put in a convincing performance. Will Self appeared as Will Self.

[Phil D. Rolls]

She made a impassioned speech about people being given a chance and not having to worry about silly things like sexism. Silence. Then she is shot down in flames as it is pointed out to her that the assistant referee had been judged before she ever had a chance. Her answer - you have no sense of humour.

So then an old guy makes the point that some things are funny and some things are just downright offensive. Nope, still didn't register.

Great advert for those who would like us to think they have the interests of society at heart. Make a point, have it proved wrong, and then carry on anyway. There's determination and there's stupidity.

On a similair theme, there's a horsey type on Come Dine With Me that is showing the same sort of sensitivity this week. Anybody seen it? The rich seem to be going back to their horrible arrogant attitudes that they had in the 80s - is it guilt or are they just nasty, nasty people.

Generating all that wealth for the rest of us must do something to their personalities.

[heretoday]

The rich must be encouraged by the fact that virtually the whole cabinet went to Eton and are millionaires. It's hardly the land of opportunity is it?

Edwina has had a new set of Hampsteads methinks. Doesn't make her any nicer though.

[--------]

Who is this Katie bint from The Apprentice? What a ghastly 'Little Britain' caricature.


'Bint'? :cool2:

I would take issue with your choice of female epithets, young man, had the individual to who you refer not enjoined me to look upon such epithets as harmless banter.

But there are ladies working in the entertainment industry in Port Said who would be mortally offended at your use of the term to designate such a stuck-up brain-dead waste of space....

[Beefster]

The rich must be encouraged by the fact that virtually the whole cabinet went to Eton and are millionaires. It's hardly the land of opportunity is it?

Edwina has had a new set of Hampsteads methinks. Doesn't make her any nicer though.

Who? There are 23 members of the Cabinet so fire away.

[Leicester Fan]

On a similair theme, there's a horsey type on Come Dine With Me that is showing the same sort of sensitivity this week. Anybody seen it? The rich seem to be going back to their horrible arrogant attitudes that they had in the 80s - is it guilt or are they just nasty, nasty people.

Generating all that wealth for the rest of us must do something to their personalities.

You know it's only a television programme don't you?

The producers deliberately pick oddballs and 'characters', ordinary, average people don't make good TV. The people who are picked play up for the cameras anyway.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You know it's only a television programme don't you?

The producers deliberately pick oddballs and 'characters', ordinary, average people don't make good TV. The people who are picked play up for the cameras anyway.

aye and footballs just a game:wink:

[AgentDaleCooper]

Who? There are 23 members of the Cabinet so fire away.

(he did say "virtually" :wink:)

[Phil D. Rolls]

You know it's only a television programme don't you?

The producers deliberately pick oddballs and 'characters', ordinary, average people don't make good TV. The people who are picked play up for the cameras anyway.

:greengrin

You know, I was always curious why people didn't mind the cameras when they were eating their tea. Are you saying the whole thing is pre-arranged, and that these people could actually be acting up and that the boring bits are edited out?

Maybe that's where I'm getting it wrong with my perception of the wealth distribution. It could be that there are only a very few people who are very rich, and that everyone else is just acting. Go to any supermarket and watch the way people treat the staff, there's a lot of people rehearsing.

[heretoday]

Who? There are 23 members of the Cabinet so fire away.


Don't you just love generalisations?

I'm sure you get the point.

[--------]

Don't you just love generalisations?

I'm sure you get the point.



See all those generalisers?


They're all stupid. :agree:












Except me. :devil:

[(((Fergus)))]

The rich must be encouraged by the fact that virtually the whole cabinet went to Eton and are millionaires. It's hardly the land of opportunity is it?

Edwina has had a new set of Hampsteads methinks. Doesn't make her any nicer though.

I hope they are as it might mean that Britain is still a place where people can generate wealth and where it is still worth living. Hibernian are testing my resolve though. :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I hope they are as it might mean that Britain is still a place where people can generate wealth and where it is still worth living. Hibernian are testing my resolve though. :wink:

Mervyn King says it's not how much money you have it's how happy you are.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Mervyn King says it's not how much money you have it's how happy you are.

aye rich folk always say things like that. Should really be strap line for this government, money doesn't make you happy, so we're taking all of yours!!:wink:

[Betty Boop]

Should be interesting tonight. Taking place in Wormwood Scrubs, with inmates in the audience.

[lyonhibs]

Should be interesting tonight. Taking place in Wormwood Scrubs, with inmates in the audience.

1/50 on that the 1st question is 'Should prisoners get the vote':greengrin

[hibsbollah]

You know it's only a television programme don't you?

The producers deliberately pick oddballs and 'characters', ordinary, average people don't make good TV. The people who are picked play up for the cameras anyway.

You're wrong im afraid. I was in the QT audience at the mansfield traquair a few months ago, and they were meticulous about having a fair split of political opinion. There was probably a higher % of middle/upper income earners but thats (arguably) representative of those interested in politics.

Dimbleby was top value, very funny off camera. Doesnt like Blair one bit, i can exclusively reveal :-)

[Sir David Gray]

1/50 on that the 1st question is 'Should prisoners get the vote':greengrin

No.

Next question? :dunno:

:greengrin

Also be interesting to see Ken Clarke being quizzed on his remarks on rape. :agree:

[One Day Soon]

You're wrong im afraid. I was in the QT audience at the mansfield traquair a few months ago, and they were meticulous about having a fair split of political opinion. There was probably a higher % of middle/upper income earners but thats (arguably) representative of those interested in politics.

Dimbleby was top value, very funny off camera. Doesnt like Blair one bit, i can exclusively reveal :-)

Dimbleby is a fully paid up member of the liberal media establishment I can reveal. They don't like Labour.

[hibsbollah]

No.

Next question? :dunno:

:greengrin

Also be interesting to see Ken Clarke being quizzed on his remarks on rape. :agree:

If Big Ken was raped by a clown, would it be OK because it wasnt a 'serious rape'?

...Just a thought.

[lyonhibs]

No.

Next question? :dunno:

:greengrin

Also be interesting to see Ken Clarke being quizzed on his remarks on rape. :agree:

what has Fat Ken said about rape?

[lyonhibs]

Melanie Phillips :furious: If I had 1 bullet left in a gun.....

[Greentinted]

what has Fat Ken said about rape?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770

[steakbake]

Melanie Philips. She's got the bleak outlook on life one finds only with people who have right wing beliefs.

[Sir David Gray]

what has Fat Ken said about rape?

Basically he referred to "serious rape" in an interview with Five Live on Wednesday which obviously implied that, in his opinion, there's some instances of rape which are not serious.

He's since apologised for any offence caused and stated that he considers all examples of rape to be extremely serious.

It's a tad worrying when this is the man who currently holds the position of Justice Minister.

[greenlex]

If Big Ken was raped by a clown, would it be OK because it wasnt a 'serious rape'?

...Just a thought.

I'd pay good money to see Big Ken being buggered by a clown.

[Peevemor]

I'd pay good money to see Big Ken being buggered by a clown.


Do you not get enough of that with Hibs? :devil:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Doesnt like Blair one bit, i can exclusively reveal :-)

Whatever happened to Lionel? Bring back Give us a clue!

[hibsbollah]

Whatever happened to Lionel? Bring back Give us a clue!

Messi was on give us a clue?! His talents never end...

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Messi was on give us a clue?! His talents never end...

Tee hee! :-)

[Future17]

Basically he referred to "serious rape" in an interview with Five Live on Wednesday which obviously implied that, in his opinion, there's some instances of rape which are not serious.

He's since apologised for any offence caused and stated that he considers all examples of rape to be extremely serious.

It's a tad worrying when this is the man who currently holds the position of Justice Minister.

Why? While he perhaps used the wrong language at certain times during a frank discussion which was somewhat heated and moved at pace, he has made his opinon quite clear since and I don't think it's at odds with his role as Justice Minister.

What he essentially was saying is that all crimes have degrees of seriousness. If you don't agree with that then you don't agree with our entire justice system.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Why? While he perhaps used the wrong language at certain times during a frank discussion which was somewhat heated and moved at pace, he has made his opinon quite clear since and I don't think it's at odds with his role as Justice Minister.

What he essentially was saying is that all crimes have degrees of seriousness. If you don't agree with that then you don't agree with our entire justice system.

:agree: The judges handing out sentences obviously think there is a different level of seriousness, otherwise everyone found guilty would get the same.

Just the usual media sensationalism.

[steakbake]

:agree: The judges handing out sentences obviously think there is a different level of seriousness, otherwise everyone found guilty would get the same.

Just the usual media sensationalism.

Exactly. :agree:

Of course there is a different level of seriousness. There are degrees of gravity in offences.

A under age boy being charged with a statutory rape of his under age girlfriend (even though the sex was "consensual") is not on a par with Delroy Grant (the so-called "Night Stalker"), who viciously sought out and attacked his victims. Yet the crime's legal name is the same.

Anyone who suggests that it is exactly the same in gravity or level of seriousness is frankly, an idiot. Some of the folks calling for Ken Clarke's head will say "that's not what we have been saying" - but it is! Clarke's point was that there are shades of gravity of offence. Those disputing it are effectively saying it is the same, no matter what the circumstances.

Hysteria tends to make the news more often than reason. People want the world to be black and white because that's nice and simple for them to understand.

[Sir David Gray]

Why? While he perhaps used the wrong language at certain times during a frank discussion which was somewhat heated and moved at pace, he has made his opinon quite clear since and I don't think it's at odds with his role as Justice Minister.

What he essentially was saying is that all crimes have degrees of seriousness. If you don't agree with that then you don't agree with our entire justice system.

Surely rape is rape, though? :confused:

Every rape case, by its very definition, involves someone being forced into having sex against their will and that is a very serious crime. I don't see how some rape cases can be deemed more serious than others.

What Ken Clarke was trying to use as an example of "less serious rape" was of an 18 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Under the current legal system, an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old, whilst still illegal, is not classed as rape so long as the 15 year old was willing to engage in sex. The 18 year old would therefore be hit with a less serious charge. People under the age of 13 are deemed incapable of giving their consent to sex, regardless of what they might say, so that is where the line is crossed.

If the Justice Secretary is seemingly unaware of this very basic fact in the legal system then that is extremely worrying in my book.

[steakbake]

Surely rape is rape, though? :confused:

Every rape case, by its very definition, involves someone being forced into having sex against their will and that is a very serious crime. I don't see how some rape cases can be deemed more serious than others.

What Ken Clarke was trying to use as an example of "less serious rape" was of an 18 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Under the current legal system, an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old, whilst still illegal, is not classed as rape so long as the 15 year old was willing to engage in sex. The 18 year old would therefore be hit with a less serious charge. People under the age of 13 are deemed incapable of giving their consent to sex, regardless of what they might say, so that is where the line is crossed.

If the Justice Secretary is seemingly unaware of this very basic fact in the legal system then that is extremely worrying in my book.

FH, dear fellow, that is not what his critics are basing their objection on.

If you listen to the clip, Ken Clarke was invited to agree that all rape is the same. Ken Clarke is not a fool. His answer was perhaps logical but given how quick people are to take offence, he ought to have explained exactly what he meant, which I think he has done. His remarks, I would say, have been deliberately misinterpreted and held up to ridicule by people who have an agenda.

Your view of it is very much in line with the Guardian's editorial stance today. I'm surprised at you! :wink:

[Future17]

Surely rape is rape, though? :confused:

Every rape case, by its very definition, involves someone being forced into having sex against their will and that is a very serious crime. I don't see how some rape cases can be deemed more serious than others.

What Ken Clarke was trying to use as an example of "less serious rape" was of an 18 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. Under the current legal system, an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old, whilst still illegal, is not classed as rape so long as the 15 year old was willing to engage in sex. The 18 year old would therefore be hit with a less serious charge. People under the age of 13 are deemed incapable of giving their consent to sex, regardless of what they might say, so that is where the line is crossed.

If the Justice Secretary is seemingly unaware of this very basic fact in the legal system then that is extremely worrying in my book.

Rape is rape in terms of technical legal definition, subject to the relevant legislation. However, in the context of the debate Clarke was engaged in, that is not what he was asked.

The debate and specific conversation (i.e. the reason he was on the programme in the first place) related not to categorisation of offences, but rather to the severity of sentencing and other similar matters. In every crime I can think of, consideration is given to the severity of the crime and any extenuating circumstanecs, before sentence is passed. Rape is no different in this regard.

I don't think anything Clarke said suggested he was unaware of any facts of the legal system. The questions he answered were clearly not as specific as to answer purely on the basis of the technical legal defintion of rape, rather he was questioned on the basis of "rape" as society generally comprehends it.

Politicians get far too much criticism for not talking our language and making people switch off from politics. I think it has to be accepted that there are circumstances when they should be allowed to discuss topics more generally. After all, he was debating on a radio programme, not drafting legislation.

[One Day Soon]

Exactly. :agree:

Of course there is a different level of seriousness. There are degrees of gravity in offences.

A under age boy being charged with a statutory rape of his under age girlfriend (even though the sex was "consensual") is not on a par with Delroy Grant (the so-called "Night Stalker"), who viciously sought out and attacked his victims. Yet the crime's legal name is the same.

Anyone who suggests that it is exactly the same in gravity or level of seriousness is frankly, an idiot. Some of the folks calling for Ken Clarke's head will say "that's not what we have been saying" - but it is! Clarke's point was that there are shades of gravity of offence. Those disputing it are effectively saying it is the same, no matter what the circumstances.

Hysteria tends to make the news more often than reason. People want the world to be black and white because that's nice and simple for them to understand.

Indeed they do.

[Mibbes Aye]

FH, dear fellow, that is not what his critics are basing their objection on.

If you listen to the clip, Ken Clarke was invited to agree that all rape is the same. Ken Clarke is not a fool. His answer was perhaps logical but given how quick people are to take offence, he ought to have explained exactly what he meant, which I think he has done. His remarks, I would say, have been deliberately misinterpreted and held up to ridicule by people who have an agenda.

Your view of it is very much in line with the Guardian's editorial stance today. I'm surprised at you! :wink:

Didn't this all start with the perception that Clarke was saying date rape wasn't as serious as violent rape, a position which he then moved away from?

I think there's probably many who would argue his original point to be true, based on the principle that one is accompanied by violence and one isn't. Unfortunately that tends to obscure the point, namely that a rape is a rape and the means by which it is carried out are just that, a means. The premeditation involved in spiking someone in order to rape them shouldn't be diminished by comparison to the use of force or fear of force to achieve the same thing.

Women have been failed by the criminal justice system in an appalling fashion for many, many years. The problem with Clarke coming out with the comments that he did is that they don't just shift focus away from that, but they help reinforce the age-old prejudice that some rapes aren't as 'bad' as others, generally because of a presumption that the woman was somehow 'at fault'. Clarke should know that, should easily know that, and the fact that he went ahead and made the comments anyway shows poor judgement.

Having said all that I suspect there was a sincerity about his comments, although I think they are based on a perspective that is faulty. I also suspect that he is jaded with life as a minister in the current set-up and that contributed to what was just another bad press day for the Government. I'm not sure how bothered he can be with it all. If he's not strong enough for his job then he should go. But while I don't like his politics he's one of the very few in the Cabinet who has any real stature.

[Dashing Bob S]

Melanie Philips. She's got the bleak outlook on life one finds only with people who have right wing beliefs.

I know. Those tedious bores seem so outraged, uptight, disgusted and scared with the world, you wonder how any of them can muster up the courage to go to the local shop and buy and pint of milk.

[steakbake]

I just read an article in one of the Sunday papers which was making the point that much of the commentary about Ken Clarke's statement was a debate about the level of violence used in a rape and whether there are gradients of seriousness. The point the article is making is that the impact on the victim as a gradient of seriousness has not been discussed significantly.

The justice system should never be used as a tool for vengence. It cannot try to synthesise a victim's greivance and trauma into meeting their expectation of the outcome of the trial. In this way, the law should always be 'cold' blooded. We're often reading people saying x amount of years wasn't long enough or 'hanging's too good for 'em' sort of outrage. It's exactly those views from which the system needs to be protected because that isn't the law and justice, that's just the noise of mob rule.

Equally, the point the article made is interesting because specifically in much of the commentary about the situation, the gravity of the offence on the part of victim was overlooked. My initial reaction was that it was a load of hot air over a comment which if fully explained, most people might have understood if not necessarily have agreed with. While I don't think that a good justice system can always be squared with the satisfaction of the victim, I regret not having factored this into my own reaction!

[Sir David Gray]

FH, dear fellow, that is not what his critics are basing their objection on.

If you listen to the clip, Ken Clarke was invited to agree that all rape is the same. Ken Clarke is not a fool. His answer was perhaps logical but given how quick people are to take offence, he ought to have explained exactly what he meant, which I think he has done. His remarks, I would say, have been deliberately misinterpreted and held up to ridicule by people who have an agenda.

Your view of it is very much in line with the Guardian's editorial stance today. I'm surprised at you! :wink:

Far be it for me to agree with the Guardian newspaper. :greengrin

However, Ken Clarke did make reference to an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old being an example of rape.

"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."

He is totally wrong, if the 18 year old was arrested by the police, he would not be charged with rape for having sex with a 15 year old assuming that she willingly engaged in the sex.

Clarke does go on to talk about "a man forcibly having sex with a woman and she doesn't want to - a serious crime."

That is the definition of all rape cases, not just serious examples as Ken Clarke was implying.


Rape is rape in terms of technical legal definition, subject to the relevant legislation. However, in the context of the debate Clarke was engaged in, that is not what he was asked.

The debate and specific conversation (i.e. the reason he was on the programme in the first place) related not to categorisation of offences, but rather to the severity of sentencing and other similar matters. In every crime I can think of, consideration is given to the severity of the crime and any extenuating circumstanecs, before sentence is passed. Rape is no different in this regard.

I don't think anything Clarke said suggested he was unaware of any facts of the legal system. The questions he answered were clearly not as specific as to answer purely on the basis of the technical legal defintion of rape, rather he was questioned on the basis of "rape" as society generally comprehends it.

Politicians get far too much criticism for not talking our language and making people switch off from politics. I think it has to be accepted that there are circumstances when they should be allowed to discuss topics more generally. After all, he was debating on a radio programme, not drafting legislation.

Having thought about this a bit more, I suppose someone who commits a rape and threatens their victim with a weapon, if they do anything to resist, will receive a harsher sentence than someone who is unarmed at the time of their alleged offence.

Based on that, I can sort of see where Ken Clarke was coming from.