I don't think he did say rape is trivial. The point he was making is that the law allows a judge, when sentencing,to reflect circumstances which add to the awfulness of an individual crime - gang rape, for example.
What would be the commonly used word that would replace the obviously impolitic 'serious' when talking about the gradation of punishment across rape cases? As in 'offender A was sentenced to 20 years in jail because is crime was judged more xxxxxx than offender b's'. Or do Jan and Julia feel the argument is redundant since all convicted rapists should be given the same sentence regardless of any related circumstances?
And he didn't say rape was only a focus for people because it was sexy. He said it was singled out 'to add a bit of sexual excitement to the headlines.'. The target being news editors, although this particular argument is still specious. The real reason the editors rounded on him is because they could scent his blood.
You could always consider the reason he was being interviewed in the first place, as Clare McGlynn in the Tory loving Guardian has here http://bit.ly/m5sya3
But no, don't bother. Just chuck him out. And see what brand of hang' em high idiot replaces him.
Rape is rape no matter what fancy name you want to call it.The B******s that perpitrate this crime wnant to ask themselves what if it was their son or daughter.A lot of these people live behind armed gates ,not only in reality but also in their own minds.;They think they are above the law ,and they are ,because a lot of theire mob make it so. At least in the the days of the Krays you knew who the enemy was and believe me I know having mixed with a lot of the crowd ,not knowing any better now you are not sure who the enemy are,Jan keep on trucking babe as you are a real voice of reason.But did you contact what I said in my last letter to you.