I have listened to the sentencing debate with increasing incredulity when a man puts his foot so far in his mouth that he can kiss his own bottom. Of course, I am talking about Ken Clarke. If Ken Clarke was a cop, particularly a Federated rank he would now be forcibly pushed towards the door marked “EXIT” but without the grace and favour of being allowed to resign. He would be sacked without notice. The reason why people like Ken Clarke believe we should be content to live amongst criminals is because of money. It is simply the case that prison is expensive. So what? I call it a debate but I suspect that what he is doing is softening us up by a constant drip feed of idiotic and crass statements so that we are not so shocked when he eventually invokes his master plan.
It is many years since I dealt with a rape victim. Advances in investigation have been made to try and ensure that the victim is paramount in this area of the justice system. I know that to some women this is the worst type of violation they can face, even higher than murder! So for a person in such a powerful position to trivialise it is unforgiveable. So what is next for our industrious Mr Clarke? Assuming he keeps his job he will still be in charge of the maintaining the high criminal element within our community either by not sending them to prison in the first place or by releasing them early from prison. Justice Secretary, don’t make me laugh. Perhaps, he needs to lie in a darkened room for a period of time. Preferably one with some padding on the walls and with the lock on the outside.
I watched the Home Secretary at Bournemouth yesterday online at www.polfed.org. I have to say that the silence with which she walked to the platform was enormous and clearly she was unsettled. It spoke volumes of how cops feel they are being treated. I also have to comment about the professionalism of Paul McKeever. He is a public speaker of some quality and it is about time this was recognised by rank and file officers who constantly bemoan the Federation. The point he made using the chart of Government spending to show just how little is actually spent on the police when you look at the full picture was a massive coup and showed this government up for the doctors of spin they are. The common theme has always been that we need to cut the police otherwise it will break the bank and the police will bankrupt society.
Honesty and Integrity only applies to the police and even then only to junior ranks.
That idea of halving sentences if rapists plead guilty at an early stage, appears to have been dropped rather quickly after all the outrage in the media, which should have come as no surprise to whoever thought up that idea.
However, I can understand what Ken Clarke was trying to say about the types and degrees of seriousness of an incident of rape. Date rape, I think IS slightly different to other forms of rape, especially when the people involved are, or were friends, before something went too far, because the offender ignored the other person saying a NO to sex. That I do think is slightly different to the rape of a victim who is attacked by someone they do not know, or by someone they do know who uses violence and threats of terrible consequences upon them.
However, rape IS rape, when it is against someone’s will, and they are forced to submit to the will and bodily power of another person who demands sex. And it’s not only females who are or have been victims of rape. It can happen to boys and men too. But perhaps men are even more reluctant than some women may be, to report the rape to police, because of the humiliation they may feel, or for other reasons, like the far reaching consequences for others, professionally, of any investigation and prosecution. Rape is both a can of worms and a hot potato!
I read an interesting article in Friday’s Mail by the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett about “Chaos at Court”. He’s had a bit of an eye opener regarding the justice system, due to a recent experience on jury service. He concluded that he realised that during his time as Home Sec, he “didn’t know the half of it”. True!
I once met a Home Office official who had recently been given a job as an advisor on Police matters. He told me that he anticipated he would need four weeks to be at full speed and able to advise Ministers on the Police!
Of course, there was uproar following his advice as a newly qualified expert turned out to be bollocks. Caused a lot of anxiety though. Beware the expert.
Yes, good advice Noble Cause.
The government often make really bad decisions based upon the words of some “experts”, who actually know very little about a complex situation or subject.
And the public just accept the words of some so called “experts” as the gospel on important matters, when quite often the “experts” have got it wrong, and make situations worse.