So what would need to happen for women to report rape and get convictions?

sorry, just seen ele's post

knee-jerk from me

it it correct then that a woman's sexual history is not allowed in court ?

It is outrageous if previous complaints are not admissible. Is that an absolute rule or at the judge's discretion? If several unrelated people make the same complaint about the same person it is ridiculous not to use them to back each other up. How did this work with Warboys?

why does the victim's sexual history being presented have to be allowed at all ?

why should we condone the idea that it makes the slightest bit of difference about whether this man is a rapist ??

EVERY Jury on a rape case should have a session on Rape Myths 101 before hearing any evidence whatsoever.

there already are guidelines IIRC seeyou. Not allowed to ask about sexual history etc.

Thorough investigation into the police's handling of rape complaints and institutionalised changes put in place.

Immediate release of the woman jailed for retracting her allegation and apologies

Widespread information spreading campaign WRT teeny percentage of false allegations.

I think a hard-hitting TV drama about the experience of a woman who reports rape would be good - not necessarily encouraging at first, but in terms of changing opinions.

(It would also encourage more people to report even if it never ended up at trial - as it could then be used as evidence in a future case at the very least and get justice for somebody)

Yes, I think prior complaints should be made available during the trial.

If the victim's sexual history is dragged up then why can the defendant's? Surely the fact that four previous girlfriends have made similar complaints (for example) DOES strengthen the current evidence being brought to the jury. It should be admissible.

Absolute anonymity for all parties in the trail until conviction (the rapist loses anonymity when convicted).
No reporting of rape trials in progress only when concluded.
Ban the Daily Mail from the UK mainland.

Instead of stricter guidelines on cross examining the witness how about questioning via proxy.

I.e. court appointed councillor / police liason gets asked questions who then asks the victim (but in a less direct way) and responds with the answers.

Wouldn't go for guidelines on what you can and cannot ask as you can't have a defence not being allowed to present all information.

Quicker bringing of trail to court.

1. Shooting most of the people who comment on CIF and those that press like on their comments.

I'm joking of course, but not quite.