Could someone please reconcile the views of Tracy Gilbert, Labour MP for Edinburgh North and Leith: “I am absolutely clear that there is no spectrum of rape and know that there is certainly no spectrum of suffering from the survivors of rape”; of Rachael Hamilton, Conservative Deputy Leader: “These views are not fit for the 21st century and the Scottish Greens should clarify they do not support a ‘spectrum of rape’ theory”, and of the Scottish Rape Crisis Alliance: “But recognising complexity does not require us to make rape itself ambiguous. There is no hierarchy of rape” with the Scottish Sentencing Council guideline for rape, and the almost-identical guideline in England, where Step 1 is to assess the seriousness of the offence in terms of culpability and harm or potential harm, into six categories from A1 to B3, which appear to create a “spectrum” or “hierarchy” of progressively harsher sentences for worse crimes.
It seems utterly bizarre to castigate an MSP for thinking through the same concepts as a High Court judge is instructed to consider, perhaps using words that a judge would not use but which appear to have the same meanings ("Q Manivannan ‘genuinely sorry’ at hurt caused by rape ‘spectrum’ remarks", The Herald, August 11). Or if Q Manivannan said something else in the podcast, why are the responses so focused on “spectrum”?
In many states of the USA, the charge of rape is split into four different degrees. These would appear to form a hierarchy. Is the observation simply that in Scots law we have a single crime and the judge assesses the severity after the conviction, while in the US the prosecution assesses the severity before coming to court, and thus carries the responsibility to prove the severity of the case to the jury?
If we should not use specific words such as “spectrum”, which was widely quoted, because of some connotation that these words have, what are those connotations? Then when we reflect on our language knowing which words not to use and why, which words should we use to describe the concept that while all rapes are abhorrent, some rapes can be more harmful than others, and that some offenders are more culpable than others, and thus some rapists deserve to receive longer sentences than others, and what makes those other words better at describing this concept?
Alternatively, if we are to reject this concept entirely, that all rapes are not only abhorrent but are equally abhorrent, why are we instructing judges to assess the crime on spectra of harm and culpability and hand out such different sentences for equally horrific crimes?
Alan Ritchie, Glasgow.
Read more letters
- Young people will pay a high price for our weakness on vapes
- We must invite astute professionals to build our new prisons
- Art School rebuild should showcase Glasgow to the wider world
Australia shows way on vaping
I could not agree more with Amanda Baker (Letters, August 11).
I am a frequent visitor to Australia. It is striking how few people in the street there are vaping (or smoking).
The law in Australia permits the sale of vapes only in pharmacies, and only after consultation with a pharmacist. Higher strengths require a prescription. They are classed as a therapy, to be used to wean off tobacco. Punishment for illegal sales is harsh.
A huge mistake has been made in this country in allowing a free-for-all.
I suspect the consequences in terms of morbidity will be worse than most people imagine.
Dr Ian Campbell (retired GP), Louth.
Wind energy claims don't stack up
George Baxter’s article gushing over Andy Burnham’s "zero carbon" vision ("Onshore wind blows strong to help cut bills and create jobs", The Herald, August 8) is no more than a long-winded bedtime story for green energy zealots. As a director of GreenPower, can he be taken seriously?
He celebrates a "modest" 6-8% return on investment for pension funds and £110m in business rates, while neatly glossing over where the real treasure goes. The vast majority of Scotland’s wind infrastructure is owned by foreign, multi-national utilities. He points out that “no corporation or aggressive nation state can control the wind and the sun. It is in all of our backyards”. Well, I hate to tell him but we can’t control it either but foreign boards of directors certainly control the profits, which are exported far faster than electricity.
The author dismisses critics as the "People’s Front of Net Stupid Zero," yet fails to answer the ultimate comedic riddle: if wind energy is so miraculously cheap, why do Scottish consumers – living in the literal shadow of these turbines – continue to endure some of the highest standing charges and fuel poverty rates in Europe?
Brushing off eye-watering constraint payments as a minor glitch is another flight of fancy. Paying wind farms millions of pounds of public money to switch off because the grid cannot cope is a structural failure, not a "childish attack" by sceptics and until affordable, grid-scale storage magically appears, this remains an expensive, intermittent system masked by grand rhetoric. The wind and sun might be free, but the bill-payer is being taken for a very windy ride.
Aileen Jackson, Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor.
Gas standing charge poser
Could someone please explain why we have standing charges on gas and electricity (based on Octopus as my current supplier) at approximately £300 per year? You burn no gas, turn on no electrical appliances, yet you pay for the basic privilege of a cable and/or pipe to your dwelling.
On that basis,why don't we have a standing order in place with a designated tradesman, garage, supermarket, oil fuel supplier etc in case we have the need to call on their services when required? All of those, and other services, get their earnings and profit on usage/supply, so why not gas?
George Dale, Beith.
Sauce worth a gander?
George Doyle (Letters, August 10) expounds upon the attractions of the greasy spoon café for a traditional serving of fish and chips.
In 1951 my parents' romantic honeymoon was a road trip to Devon and Cornwall. A stop at a highly recomnended greasy spoon café on the A74 near Lockerbie for a fish and chip supper was very much looked forward to. Things were so much simpler then.
Whilst waiting, a shabbily-dressed unshaven gentleman on an adjacent table was excited as his dish arrived. A concerted thumping of the Heinz Tomato Ketchup achieved the desired effect and a large dollop spattered onto the plate. The elderly gentleman then replaced the screw cap onto the glass bottle whilst the excess ketchup below the stopper oozed out in a manner that those of us of a certain age will remember.
This resulted in a keenly anticipated and expectant gaze followed by a slow and deliberate expert tongue-licking around the waiting ring of fare before replacing the bottle on the worn-out Formica table.
My mother never touched tomato ketchup again.
Peter Wright, West Kilbride.
Share