Kenneth Clarke

[Rhodes]

I see that the totally 'out of touch' Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has been forced to issue an unreserved apology following his unacceptable comments about rape yesterday on Radio 5 Live. Clarke sparked calls for his sacking after stating that some rapes were, wait for it, 'less serious than others' and declined several opportunities to say sorry, merely saying that 'it had been a mistake if he had given the wrong

impression'. Surely this hush puppy wearing excuse for a man's resignation is imminent, if not he will surely be hung drawn and quartered on Question Time tonight:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8522056/Kenneth-Clarke-apologises-for-causing-offence-with-comments-about-rape.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388096/Ken-Clarke-rape-gaffe-Sex-attack-victim-hits-hes-danger-women.html

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/18/david-cameron-urged-sack-kenneth-clarke-rape

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eastside Urchin]

Some are worse than others.

The same as some murders are worse than others and some burglarys are worse than others and some assaults are worse than others.

No two crimes are ever the same.

[Basil-Don]

there are two guilty parties involved with rape cases-men who actually commit rape and women who cry rape,both should be sentenced to very long term sentences.

[Eastside Urchin]

Indeed,I despise women (and on the very odd occasion men) who cry rape,for two reasons. 1/ because they make the actual crime itself when committed,scrutinised to the extent that some rape victims nowadays are almost not believed because if the amount of cry wolf cases and 2/because they are prepared to completely ruin someones life for whatever selfish disgusting reason

[Rhodes]

So who saw the lame excuse for a man on Question Time last night trying to weasle his way out of what he said on radio about rape victims

[Big J R]

I actually thought last nights 'Question Time' broadcast from Wormwood Scrubs was very good.

 

Nice to see Clarky squirming, as well !

Edited May 20, 2011 by Big J R

[missunderstood]

I actually thought last nights 'Question Time' broadcast from Wormwood Scrubs was very good.

 

Nice to see Clarky squirming, as well !

 

 

To be honest, I thought it was just a cheap publicity stunt by the BBC to hold it in the Scrubs in the first place.

 

IMO anyone that commits a crime so serious that a custodial sentence is deemed necessary, should lose all but the most basic of human rights, and they most certainly should not be given a voice on national television, and more-so on a channel that is funded by public subscription.

[Big J R]

I actually thought last nights 'Question Time' broadcast from Wormwood Scrubs was very good.

 

Nice to see Clarky squirming, as well !

 

 

To be honest, I thought it was just a cheap publicity stunt by the BBC to hold it in the Scrubs in the first place.

 

IMO anyone that commits a crime so serious that a custodial sentence is deemed necessary, should lose all but the most basic of human rights, and they most certainly should not be given a voice on national television, and more-so on a channel that is funded by public subscription.

 

 

I partially agree, Missunderstood.

 

I don't believe ANY convicted person serving a sentence should be entitled to a vote.

 

HOWEVER..........

There has to be a massive dividing line between Murderers/Rapists/Robbers and Fraudsters/Con-Men.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Big J R

[Hookey]

I actually thought last nights 'Question Time' broadcast from Wormwood Scrubs was very good.

 

Nice to see Clarky squirming, as well !

 

 

To be honest, I thought it was just a cheap publicity stunt by the BBC to hold it in the Scrubs in the first place.

 

IMO anyone that commits a crime so serious that a custodial sentence is deemed necessary, should lose all but the most basic of human rights, and they most certainly should not be given a voice on national television, and more-so on a channel that is funded by public subscription.

 

 

I partially agree, Missunderstood.

 

I don't believe ANY convicted person serving a sentence should be entitled to a vote.

 

HOWEVER..........

There has to be a massive dividing line between Murderers/Rapists/Robbers and Fraudsters/Con-Men.

 

Why? What's the difference between a robber, fraudster and con-man/woman?

[Rhodes]

Has anybody actually listened to Clarke's interview on Radio Five Live last Wednesday, there are four days left to listen to it so I suggest that you do even though you won't believe your ears:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007v5cz