Keep this up and the UK branch of the Caucasian race is en-route for subsumption, as British men seek the "home comforts" with women of other races in other countries. Because at present a sexually active, heterosexual relationship in UK is starting to look a risk too far. When it's hard to find a 100% Caucasian child at kindergarten in UK it'll be too late. Game over. Way to go, NuLabour. Cultural genocide.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

Malcolm Mclean
WHAT!!! You should try living in Saudi then, as I fail to see the difference between raping a woman for being alone with a man and lashing her. I hope this means that you consider youself to be consenting to sex everytime you are alone with a man. If a woman had said all men are potential rapists so do not be alone with them because you might get raped, you would probably be up in arms claiming that she was a man hating feminist, but that is exactly what you are saying. men are not animals, so they can control themselves. The fact that a man can rape a woman does not mean he has the right to.

kelly, uk,

Our entire justice system seems on the wrong foot. We treat people as if they were human beings, both victims and offenders. This is only partly true, half the time we are mammals guided by intelligence. Our self may be conceived either as a natural brute or as a spiritual being striving toward fellowship with the divine ruler. Education does not guarantee that we seek the kingdom of heaven, not even with a Christian upbringing (not sure about other faiths). If a violent crime is perpetrated any divine spark must have been extinguished beforehand. Afterwards in court, we convict an intelligent mammal that as a human being had never arrived on the scene. Teach him to behave as a human.

Hermann Burchard, Stillwater , Oklahoma

I'm really surprised that there are, so far, no views from women amongst these comments. I can only assume that this constantly debated issue has left most of us despondent and apathetic that there is any real way to get justice. Despairingly, I recently listened to an advert encouraging women not to drink, for their own safety, nicely jumping on the "you're wearing a short skirt, you must obviously want to be violently raped!" bandwagon. The women who falsely accuse men of rape should be treated as harshly as the men who are successfully convicted of it. But what of the women who are genuine victims? I suggest we should be provided with the means of making ourselves less vulnerable in society, for example, being able to buy pepper spray. But then how can the authorities be sure that that percentage of us lurking in the shallow end of the gene pool won't abuse this privilege.

Liz, Midlands,

I presume somebody with the aristocratic name Cavendish comes to matters of social and legal complexity from a rightward direction, which seems borne out by this article. There are several reasonable points made, although the general tone of the article (pity the poor man) is typical of the "magna carta/Englishman's rights/frightful complaining women" reflex position of the synthetic Right.

Given that a survey this year showed that the "she was asking for it" view is still held by a worrying amount of citizens (potential jurors) it is reasonable for the Government to attempt to dispel myths (short of prejudicing a trial) if these are preventing prosecutions. If it turns out that there is another reason, such as the bluntness of the crime (as Ms Cavendish suggests) then this may need to be considered by the Law Commission. The Scottish Law Commission is soon to publish a wide-ranging paper on sexual offences which may illuminate the issue.

Jonathan M Smith, Edinburgh, UK

Following the argument that dressing provocatively should not be seen as encouraging rape, of course, there is never any excuse for forcing sex on another person. No means no. But, are we really suggesting that there are never circumstances in which control is lost because someone is scantily dressed? If a young lady was to walk into a group of drunken men and she was completely nude, is it realistic to expect them to interpret her behaviour as anything but possibly being available? I can imagine that the same young woman scantily dressed with minimal attention to covering vital parts of her body would appear just as enticing! Is there any responsibility at all on the young woman to relate how she is dressed to how she determines her availability?

Tom Jackson, London, UK

If the government seriously wants to help rape victims they should provide some funding to Rape Crisis, whose centres are currently closing due to lack of money. These centres are provided to help victims whether they wish to press charges or not and if they do then there is valuable support which can reduce the risk of a prosecution being dropped before coming to trial because it all becomes too much for the victim.

K , Midlands, UK

There is 'Justice', and there is Law. Very seldom do they agree. The great Supreme Justice Holmes was told by his friend Learned Hand to " Do Justice Sir, do Justice". Justice Holmes told him " I do Law, Sir, not Justice." Politicians and activists want 'Cosmic Justice'. This is a malleable concept that fits all occasions and not necessarily the Law. I would reccomend Thomas Sowell's book 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice', especially to the Solicitor General who is way out of her depth.!! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

What does drunk mean? When driving the law is very precise and scientific about its definition. Is this to be the case where sexual activity is concerned? Are men and women to be required to take breathalising equipment with them on a night out? Who is to administer the test, verify it and record the result? At what stage? Does the same go for drug testing? (It's hard enough it seems to get accurate results under controlled conditions in the case of top athletes) Two drunks having a go in the bedroom could prove a bit of a problem.

dafredo, Geneva,

I broadly agree with the article. but there is some relevance in looking at the statistics measuring convictions against accusations, rather than merely against cases brought to court.

I'd wager the reason the conviction rate is actually quite high is because a rape case will only be brought if there is a very high chance of securing a conviction.

the real problem is with the crime itself. frequently, the disagreement over whether a crime has been committed is genuine. it's not even just a case of his word against hers; it's a case of his interpretation against hers.

however, when it does come down to one person's word against the other - and in most cases it will because it's not something that happens in public - it's not that there is no desire to investigate, it's just that it's a waste of police time. finding evidence of sex won't be enough.

it's all too easy to cry rape. it's genuinely difficult to prove it has taken place. shagger's remorse is no cause.

jem, london, uk

We need to be absolutely robust. If a woman, not being a virgin, goes alone with a man to a private place, the law has no further interest.
That will knock all of these dodgy allegations on the head, women will know absolutely what the score is, and those who are too innocent to understand human sexuality will be protected.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I fully agree with this article. I was raped but didn't report it or take to court. Why? Because it was purely down to my word against his. Surely the law can't convict on that, and I wouldn't want it to! Too many false rape claims occur, and those made by people who were fully consensual when drunk but wake up regretting it. I know a few people who have got really drunk, even telling me that they were going to sleep with "x" tonight, and then the next morning basically said they regret it now and oh no it was rape. There has to be some distinction made between a violent assult and a drunken mistake.

Meg, Stoke on Trent, UK

Perhaps the courts should rule that if you have sex with someone who appears very drunk, then you automatically risk being accused of rape. The question of consent when under the influence of alcohol is extremely gray so why not advise men to steer clear. And since drunkeness is no defence in criminal cases, a possible defence of the male also having had too much to drink would not be admissable. Since the woman is not supposed to be on trial (a joke, I know) her state of inebriation would cease to be the main factor in the trial.

Toni Hargis, expat, chicago, USA

I have nothing against myths being busted but I suspect this is just more misguided social engineering. Thank god for juries.

Steve Bush, Cirencester, UK

I would like to point out that these statistics also come from men. Listen to david camerons take, he based his arguements on the fact that a huge proportion of men think rape is ok! It is not women who are driving these reforms, but men and their attitudes. If I am consenting to sex if I drink, then i am also consenting to sex anytime I am alone with a man since I am unable to fight a man off sober, or drunk. I would also like to point out that rape allegations by men are also increasing so unless men want to risk themselves being raped when they are out on the town drunk as anything, they better hope the juries are forced to abide by the law, because i am sure many of the men here have at some point being alone with another man while drunk, without assuming they are consenting to penetrative sex!

anon, UK,

In recent years the risk of being falsely accused of rape has become so significant that these days I won't go further than a peck on the cheek without a consent form signed in the presence of an attorney. Needless to say, dating has become an expensive business.

JD, London,

What a sensible article. Shows no bias to women/men.
Thanks for giving the statistics (not sure whether it is true; I hope so). Wonder how the labour, tories & ofcourse the feminists keep repeating the lies to make it look as if it was true.

suresh, reading,

Unfortunately decisions like the one where a woman made several false rape allegations and got off without a prison sentence tends to undermine the whole judicial process and is likely to be one of the reasons why juries are unwilling to convict. Remember for criminal trials the jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt to convict. If the Government tries to gerrymander the judicial process to get more convictions it could very well result in more of those accused appealling on the grounds that their human rights have been violated by the Government.

Stephen, St. Ives, England

With this government's track record, I fear that the supposed "myth busting packs" will in reality be "politically correct thinking indoctrination packs".

Hopefully there will still be enough fair-minded individuals on juries to reject this latest attempt to ensure that "a larger proportion of men are convicted" - whether guilty or not!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

Notice too how all rape is considered to be man on women. Gay rape is also common but no one is interested in that at the Home Office because it might upset the Gay Groups who pretend such offences dont exist.

Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

Any civil liberty erosion campaigners care to speak out about the Governments plans? Where are you now?

i.e., Norwich,

Since when has justice had anything to do with percentages? Would there be even half the fuss if it wasn't for the fact that only a man can commit rape - and that conversely the majority of victims are female? Justice by numbers is no justice at all - each case should be tried - and judged - on its own merits. If some lobby group happens to think that the ratio of convictions is too low, it doesn't necessarily mean that culprits are getting away with it - it could also be that an excess of false allegations are being made!

Dominic Graham de Montrose, London,

I am amazed that this view is not being voiced more often in the media.

The nature of the crime does not only make conviction difficult, it also makes false accusation easy.

This political bandwagon will destroy innocent male lives and do nothing to protect innocent female victims.

Steve, London,

We have to face the real issues.

The reason the rape conviction rate is low is that a very high proportion of allegations are false. Rape genuinely is a very easy allegation to make. It requires no injury. It requires no forensic evidence. It is difficult to disprove and, even where it can be so disproven, women are almost never prosecuted.

The pursuit of high conviction statistics debases women as much as men.

Jo, London, London

There are two basic natural human instincts hunger and sex, other needs like shelter, clothes, education, money, love etc are all secondary. All humans will eat, similarly human will engage in sex if situation permits. To put food in front of a hungry person and tell him not to eat is stupid, same as creating a situation and then shouting rape is more stupid.

Kate , Manchester, UK

The judicial system is outdated it seems to me. Even when rapists and paedophiles are convicted their sentences are often laughable. Prison doesn't seem to work - it's not a deterrent or there wouldn't be so much overcrowding. The rate of reoffending is high. Surely it's time for a rehaul. On a remote island, somewhere in the pacific I think, there was an extremely high ratio of sexual offenders in the community. Once caught the offender would be taken to the town hall to face his victims and the community as a whole, answer their questions and hear how his crimes had affected them. The rate of reoffending was in single figures. Here rapists and paedophiles seem to be protected more than the victims are.

Liz, Midlands,

Are all the comments on this from MEN!!
Is it not odd that the govts' statistics are always fudged but journalists manage to get total clarity of vision

leonidas, york, uk

Geoffrey,
Out in Modena you possibly haven't realised that 'nu lab' is not amusing, it's stale and OLD. And as for 'spoilt little Islington middle class socialist twits'; there was an interesting case of bullying by the defence in an Islington rape trial a few years ago. The defendent had admitted burgulary ; he had broken into a block of flats and was caught with the loot in his bag. He had decided to end the evening with rape, found a woman sleeping alone and put a knife to her throat. She was sleeping alone because she was ill and she screamed, her husband rushed out from the spare room and overpowered the attacker. The defendent claimed that, while he was robbing the other flats, this woman had walked out and propositioned him. He admitted putting a knife to her throat (unusual in consensual sex) but stuck to this story. So his barrister spent hours badgering this woman to support this absurd story. The jury's back was hardened and he was found guilty.

Dectora, London, UK

Once again we see another article playing to the crowd and ignoring the victims - if there are no issues with rape as you seem to be lengthily trying to suggest (with a couple of platitudes thrown in for good measure) why was there another case of suicide this year from a victim the police did not believe?

Having been raped myself and knowing what you go through in such an incident, when the rapist was known to me, I can assure there are issues, we do need to address attitudes and pretending rape is the same as any other crime is nonsense. Clear evidence is the first port of call in such cases - and is normal for murder cases. Not so easy in rape.

There are never any protests made at the disgusting way we handle the situation, the prevailing male attitude to rape on show here today or upon conviction the length of time someone spends in jail (minimum). Out pops another dismissive piece to make the issue worse. Get another perspective woman. Preferably from the countless victims

Laurel, London,

Jurors are selected at random and come from all walks of life. People I know who have done jury service have all reported that it is taken extremely seriously. Evidence is considered very carefully and clarification sought where necessary.

The government, in its usual condescending fashion, doesn't trust this system, and thinks some kind of guidance is needed.

It can be taken for granted that this guidance will be of the usual thoroughly patronising and insulting kind, being an attempt to instruct people who experience everyday life, well, daily, by those who never experience it at all.

A fundamental reason for having a jury in the first place is that it will be representative of the people as a whole. Puerile, spoilt little middle-class Islington socialist twits will therefore be present in proportion to the frequency with which they occur in real life.

And there's the rub, as far as nu-lab are concerned.

Geoffrey, Modena, Italy

A well-balanced article. Well you do have to have good balance when you're sitting a the fence, don't you?

Mike Finn, Leeds,

it IS worrying if men are getting away with rape. But the shrillness of the government rhetoric worries me, perhaps even more. It's the implicit assertion that juries have 'got it wrong' and need to be 'reminded' - i.e. influenced while sitting by a set of government-peddled statistics which will assist in cleansing them of their prejudices. This government has toyed previously with them removal of juries in cases where they don't provide the necessary results. There's an iliberal streak you can trace through so many of this government's activities.

Gus Swan, London, London

Rape is a shocking crime - yes. But so is having a kitchen knife plunged into your chest 80 times or being kicked into a bloodied pulp by a gang walking home from the underground. How badly the victim suffered does not alter the defendant's entitlement to a fair trial - and instructions to a jury on matters of opinion without requiring the prosecution to prove these matters of opinion and in turn giving the defendant right to cross examine will prejudice the defendant's entitlement to a fair trial.

I further fail to understand the logic which would overturn the general presumption against hearsay evidence but only in the case of rape. Why not other offences? It is 'bad' evidence and is excluded for that reason.

But that is the lawyer in me talking. Rape is now a 'political' crime. A man must be punished and, frankly, any man will do. My advice to men (including my son) - in the current climate be very very careful. Steer clear of drunken women or women travelling alone.

Hugh, London,

The Government and Opposition seem intent on making political capital out of appearing to be 'tough' on rapists. Yet what is completely ignored is that we live in a society where young men and women routinely render themselves completely insensible through either drugs or alcohol or a cocktail of both. Both men and women are equally sexually predatory in the modern world and casual sex with strangers is the norm. In this social environment it beggars belief that politicians cling to a medieval image of women as virtuous innocent maidens. As someone who has worked in the court system I have seen a disturbing number of dubious accusations of rape and understand the misery which the wrongful conviction and stigmatisation of innocent men has - not just serving in prison as a 'nonce' but the Sex Offenders Register too. Politicians ought to live in the 21st century not the 14th - there ought to be no presumptions that one party is routinely to blame just the application of common sense.

John, Manchester,

So let me get this right ...
The inability to muster enough evidence for a normal trial, is to be offset by allowing a weak case to be tried in conjunction with a spin pack to convince the jury that this is a strong case. Yet we have evidence that a properly presented case will result in an adequate rate of conviction.

Just because the government can't live up to its election promises on crime doesn't mean they can blame jurors without us noticing. A realistic target (for any crime, let alone rape) is to get more cases fit for trial instead of trying to distort the courts with more spin doctoring.

KR, Stockport,

Surely we must be capable of recognising that a proportion of all rape accusation is false, it being in fact projection by the woman. And therefore that policy to address ACTUAL rape must attempt to quantify, and give consideration to, the direct effect it will have on the level of injustice that results from false accusation. Mustn't it?

Or has normative behaviour become so adolescent that it's now acceptable to consider policy only in terms of the achievement of its primary objective?

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

A thoughtful and balanced case, but unfortunately not typical. We seem to have developed the infantile habit of gazing long and hard at one side of an equation while paying no attention to the other.
The truth is that most of us won't be affected by this lunacy, so most of us won't care. But many thousands of innocent lives will be ruined as a consequence, and no-one will care about that either. As for me, I'm too old to worry about being put in the frame.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

This is a very impotant article. The political drive towards conviction in rape cases is terrifying. The conviction rate at trial should of course be much, much lower than it is for murder, given the near impossibility of proving what happened behind closed doors in so many of these cases. That is not to say that some rapists are not getting away with their crimes....I am certain they are, but in the majority of circumstances it will not be provable in court. The solution is to keep the burden of proof high, but to increase sentences-especially for the worst (ie most violent) rapes.

The rape laws in this county increasingly criminalise one night stands (for men, not for women of course). And thus represent an attack on personal sexual liberty. Only a govenrment of married (or occasionally gay) men and women could countenance a law where consent is "impossible while intoxicated"- such a law would put all male students in prison

William, London, UK

This is all part of the anti-man establishment, both north and south of the border. When a drunk man is involved in an act of violence, be it agrressor or victim, it is his fault for being drunk. When a drunk woman is involved in an act of violence, be it as aggressor or victim, then it's the mans fault. Women do not have to take responsiblity for their own actions, this is government policy, but it rather leaves the issue of equality out in the cold.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Once again the law is firmly Biased on the womens side and its all about women getting raped. but no figures seem to be mentioned about male victims. suddenly once that is mentioned it all becomes a joke - when a girl carries on while the man is drunk, does he go all mental about it, i doubt it!

tommy, newcastle, yorkshire

As long as neither party disputes that intercourse happened, most rape trials will be reduced to "she said yes - no I didn't". I wouldn't want to go through it again as a juror. In the trial in which I did my jury service, there was an acquittal. Almost inevitable in the circumstances, as there was certainly doubt.

Geoff Walker, bordeaux, france

I've waited a long time for someone to make these points. False allegations are common, and it is the worst kept secret in the legal world that the CPS proceeds with rape cases 'on policy grounds' in circumstances where they would not dream to persevere with other sorts of allegations.

The danger of justice miscarrying in these situations is extreme.

Goodness knows what is going into these 'information packs', or how the law is going to be mutilated to provide for their admissibility.

Sometimes you get the impression we have 635 full-time legislators of the driven, workaholic bent - and a country that does not really need quite so many laws as they feel compelled to foist upon us...

A Barrister, London, UK

I am a rapist.

One morning my girlfriend told me that I shouldn't have done it last night because she'd been too drunk. All I could say, feebly, was that she hadn't seemed drunk to me. I hadn't done it: we had.

Now it is evident that the proper punishment for this crime was the one I actually got: a certain coldness for the rest of the day.

If we define what happened as rape then there is a lot of it about and it shouldn't even be criminalised.

If on the other hand we define rape as being a serious sexual assault then it demands a prison sentence. But in that case what happened that night was not rape.

Campaigners seem to want to have it both ways. They want nice big statistics to show that all women and many men have been raped. And they want punishments that reflect the seriousness of the worst cases.

The victims in all this are the genuine assaulted rape victims whose experience is devalued by equating it to the experience of a minor conjugal misunderstanding.

Joe Bruno, London,

Camilla has produced yet again a good article ... an essential detail is the point made concerning the attempt to use fudged statistics as a component in this government's, read Labour party, ongoing unjustified assault on the use of juries.

Hector, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK

I am not a lawyer, and I confess to being baffled by the complexity of the law. But I know inconsistency when I see it.

If someone is tried for a crime such as assault or murder, they are ill-advised to plead that they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Far from mitigating the crime, that would usually (as I understand it) be viewed as exacerbating it. The rule seems to be: get drunk or high at your own risk, for you are still responsible for everything you do. Harsh, but arguably fair. Above all, calculated to deter drunkenness and loss of control.

When it comes to rape, this principle is reversed - but only on the side of the plaintiff. If a man and a woman have sex when the woman is intoxicated, and the woman decides afterwards that she did not consent, that is apparently rape. But if a man who is intoxicated rapes a woman, his drunkenness would be deemed an aggravating, not an extenuating factor.

Or have I got it all wrong?

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,

New Labour is, and always has been, in thrall to Women's movements and pressure groups. It will countenance and enact any absurdity if it feels such action will curry favour with the femimists who now control government policy-making (I will not dignify it with the word "thinking"). You can expect many more such infringements of men's rights before the inevitable violent backlash makes the country effectively ungovernable. And thank you Camilla, for highlighting the real conviction rate rather than the ridiculous figure based on number of allegations. As with the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuaries, people are being encouraged by government to make allegations which, in any sane society, would not be given credence

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

It is also an outrage that politicians increasing the risk that women who make false and malicious allegations of rape will succeed in their wicked schemes. We are close to the point beyond which the worst injustices in this area will be against men.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

Thank you for this article. I would suspect that rape allegation cases like many child abuse allegation cases are just not being investigated with the will or the expertise that is required.
It is not good enough to just give 'different guidlines' to juries who sit on the very few rape allegation cases, which ever get to court.
The quality of investigation and the will and ability, of the relevant authorities, to collect the evidence, in rape allegation cases, is what should be being scrutinised.
It is very easy to understand why most victims of rape don't come forward and report what has happened to them.

Darnthesafetynet, London , W11 1NR