Rape accused - innocent until proven guilty?

[Whickerman]

A young man whose consensual sex partner couldn't remember the tryst, and claimed rape because she was drunk, has been cleared.
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Chef-cleared- of-raping-solicitor-395903259.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/colum nists/india_knight/article5993008.ece

Despite him drinking as much as her, under British law he can be arrested if she claims she's too drunk to consent. So my question - 2 parts actually -
1. Why was he named immediately, yet despite him being found innocent she is not identified? (Same rules apply in vexacious false rape claims)
2. Why is the onus on one party in the couple to be responsible? Whatever happened to equality and personal responsibility?

And before someone gets in with it, I'm NOT suggesting date rape doesn't happen, and I'm NOT suggesting a victim brings it on him/herself by drinking.

[weeal]

It has occured to me tho that a high percentage of males would have no problem having sex with a semi-conscious female, whether she was flirting and up for it earlier in the evening or not, but what makes a male think that if he just 'takes it' its right ?
That only works one way ... very difficult to take sex from a semi-conscious male eh.

Men should think about the position they could be in with a female they hardly know in such circumstances. You cant just have sex with someone who's "out of it" its not right.

I do think the article above looks awful but the only two people who know the facts disagree on it.

[New Judge]

You are quite right, brionon.

There must be a clear distinction between an alleged victim telling downright lies and an alleged victim telling the truth, but where the evidence is not to a high enough standard to secure a prosecution.

That is not the issue in Mr. Bacon�s case. Nobody has suggested that the alleged victim lied. In fact her story is completely plausible. The case was properly brought by the CPS because in an earlier case it was ruled that a woman who was said to have consented to sex was too drunk to realise what she was doing and so was not in a position to give consent. This in my view was an extremely dangerous ruling and was bound to lead to the sort of case we saw last week.

The issue for the jury was whether the lady in their case was similarly disabled from consenting to sex, and they very quickly decided that she was not.

[gilf]

hc4361 - works both ways though doesn't it? What about a victim who has made false claims in the past, why should just their name be protected and not the defendant.

As it happens I think both names should be protected.

[bobs1975]

hc is off (dare I say) "her" rocker

[bobs1975]

hc4361 is off (dare I say) "her" rocker

[kurtcfan8990]

Nobody should ever be named. A crime even if commited is not the business of the general public and not for the media to devour and blow out of proportion for slick and sleazy public entertainment just for the pay or the thrill of naming someone.
And who wants to be named even if they weren't raped? It's like the worst moment wrenched from your soul when you have to admit you're wrong, hard for anyone to do, and if she is named it will be like that except to a great sunken nation, all over the papers and on everyone's lips. Personally I think it's none of the nation's beeswax what their names are. It's their problem.