Vicky
A woman is responsible for her actions when drunk, but she is not responsible for the actions of anyone else. You seem to say that if a man who beats his wife up when drunk is punished, a woman who is raped should be punished. Having sex against someones will is rape, regardless of whether the person was drunk, unconcious, had fainted, wore skimpy clothes etc. And cameron has not said anything about punishing men who have sex with women who regret it, he has said that men should be punished for having sex with someone who did not consent A woman cannot rape herself, so she cannot be responisble for her rape, but the man who has sex with her when he knows she does not consent is. What are you saying that it should be legal to rape someone if they do not meet your moral standards. And I think you will find it is very uncommon for a women to make a false rape claims just because she regrets sex. It is the pro-rape group who have stirred up hysteria!

jane, London, uk

If a bloke wakes up with an ugly munter it’s not rape, its TS.
Women who wear provocative clothing and have had a few drinks, who then find themselves waking up with a stranger who they dont fancy haven’t been raped. Just because they regret what they have done dosent mean they didnt bring it on themselves or consent to it.

If someone is drunk they should still be held responsible for their actions. The drunk who goes home and knocks his wifes teeth out is no less responsible for his actions because he was drunk - the same applies to women, but as usual women are always classed as victims and cannot possibly be responsible for their misfortune.

Camron just wants to stir up hysteria so he can get a bit of attention. There are women who have suffered from real rape, who have been brutally assaulted and harmed, and now some silly girls who drink too much and wake up with a stranger are classing themselves as rape victims? What a joke.

Vicky, Dorset, UK

brown spokesman pretends that sexual assault referral centres solve the problem - these centres offer initial support to gather forensic evidence and to support the woman to report rape. They are then referred to an Independent sexual violence advisor. These posts are funded by the home office via the victims fund as a pilot and further funding has not been disclosed. It has been envisaged by the home office that agencies such as the police, primary care trusts and local authorities will pick up core funding for these advisors. What a joke, organisations who have current ISVA posts have been informed, that these statutory agencies are required to save save x millions in their departments, so will not be picking up this funding. How does the home office foresee access to continued funding of these posts?
Specialist sexual violence officer recieve minimal sexual violence training, this training is not carried out by specialists in the field.

becky, essex, uk

Aden Brill,
we do not punish women for wearing short skirts and drinking by raping them, nor do we stone them. So if a man has non-consensual sex with a woman he is a rapist. He would also be a rapist if he had non-consensual sex with a drunk, semi-clothed young man. Do you think that men act like prostitutes when they drink! BTW pathetic victim is right
Richard,
2% of all rape claims are false, the same percentage as for other crime. Do you think it would be wrong to toughen the GBh laws because some men lie?The whole consensus seems to be we should not teach people that no means no, and we should not try to have better police action against rapists because some people lie! That works for every crime and I would like to point out to those that blame women for increase in rapes, that there has been an increase of men getting raped. Why is there no outrage over the fact that 50% of young men think rape is ok! If you son was raped-would you tell him he deserved i or suggest he lied

John, London, uk

Paul Dennison,
What is your problem. Surely you favour a society where men who have non-consensual sex with men and women get put imprison. Do you disagree with the idea that if a young man says no to sex he means no and it is wrong for another man to have sex with him just because he is drunk or has behaved a certain way? cameron is not saying convict innocent men, he is saying convict men when it is proved that they had non-consensual sex, instead of freeing him because the woman or man was drunk, he is saying teach people that no means no, he is saying fund rape centres and have more police officers trained to deal with it as rape is a difficult crime so effort needs to be put in to getting the right evidnce like other countries do, not just relying on witness testimony like we do. It is frightening that a man would say he disagrees with punishing rapists, and it shows the moral decline that this man is willing to put his full name by that statement!

jane, London, uk

Hmm. Rape is a serious crime but I wonder if Cameron has read my local paper's coverage today of a woman given a suspended sentence for three false rape allegations? Probably too busy now chasing other headlines.
If it were not for the diligence of the police, and perhaps under a Cameron government, the men would have been jailed?

richard, plymouth, england

And how does he intend to accomplish this? Does one now need a license to carry an armed penis? Everyone agrees that rape is an appalling crime but soundbites won't help. As to educating men that they need consent, let's also educate women that they if they do have consensual sex they can't change their mind the next day because they regret it.

Doug Bates, St. Albans,

So, if young women dress and act like prostitutes, regularly get blind drunk , encourage sexual behaviour with men thay don't know well and then say no, they are not also at fault?

Am I a pathetic victim of these sexual myths or a realist?

Aden Brill, Hereford, UK

Heather McCartney, Amanda Knox, et al.

So far as I can see, truth is considered optional by women, if they're sad, happy, lonely, upset, regretting their actions, wanting children, an abortion, a meal ticket, to avoid blame or they want something, want to hurt somebody, don't want to be seen in a certain way.

It's no surprise to me at all that Islam needs male witnesses to testify in a rape case, because so many women seem just use it to damage men who've slept with them, and got away without the woman making a house from the transaction.

Of course, feminist lobby groups disagree with this assertion, but men on juries have had a lifetime of watching women describing as fact their view of what happened, and they aren't fooled by manhating propoganda

I dearly believe some women are raped by nutters, and these men should be strung up, but huge numbers of women are either complicit or liars; rape prosecutions will never go up without equal punishment for women lying.

Charles, London,

Thats it for me. Another white man leaving Britain! I'm not putting up with this kind of justice system!

Paul Dennison, Colchester,

Sure, some innocent men will be caught up in the net by lowering the burden of proof, but what the hell - it makes a good soundbite!

Proving the nature of an act which has invariably happened in private is annoyingly difficult, but it cannot be otherwise. Trying to resolve this by convicting on the basis of a weaker standard of proof - perhaps a denouncement and some circumstantial evidence - would be morally unacceptable.

Rape is appalling, but it goes to the very basis of our society that to convict an innocent of this crime is even more apalling. The price of freedom is not free!

Mike Hart, London, UK

David is joking if he thinks this constitutes sound policy. Traditional Tory territory is governing properly and holistically, and having a wide range of law and order policies that tackle crime in general, not just one particular issue now and again.

This like other articles is policy-by-numbers, and I am ashamed that David, two years into his leadership, has not yet come up with a raft of policies designed to impress many come a general election. He is forgetting that campaigners represent a small and vocal minority of any social grouping, and that the real majority are crying out desperately for help tackling widespread social and economic decay. IDS' social exclusion unit is to be welcome but it seems to me too little and too fragmented to be worth any serious consideration as a long-lasting, solid policy initiative that appeals to the broad swathe of voters from "poor" areas, who want the same thing as voters from rich areas - a Britain to be proud of again.

Michael Howard, Folkestone, UK