I'd like to say I'm enraged, but I think there wouldv'e had to have been more of a shock involved. The poeople who say its the two tier system but by the back door and that this just restates current case law are right.
bastarding bastards.

When I first read about this, I could kind of see where they were coming from, but the more I think about it the more it sucks. The way it is worded is careful. All it is apparently saying is that the circumstances surrounding the offense should be taken into account. This is reasonable. There are some cases where the offense is more violet and/or traumatic than in other cases, and this should be taken into account. However, people could easily infer from this that it is simply not a serious offence to rape someone who had been up for sex initially and changed their mind, or had consented to sexual activities which didn't include intercourse. It is not said explicitly, and could be denied. However, if this is not what we should infer, then what is the point of saying any of it? Every case should be judged on its details, and this is the way it works already.