House, I'm not sure the issue of false rape allegations is relevant to this particular thread. Nonetheless, it is common on this forum for such posts to be written off with an accusation of rape apology. I don't think they are generally intended as such, and was just pointing out that there is a reasonable motive for providing such extreme and rare examples when discussing a law, in that it tests how fundamental rights are protected.
I know for many of you, increasing the amount of rape convictions is a priority, since many of you have had first hand experience of the problems in the system. But for others, protecting fundamental rights such as 'innocent until proven guilty' is even more important. That might seem ludicrous, but it you compare it to other issues (such as the families of murder victims who want the bring back the death penalty vs those who think even one false conviction is not worth it) then it makes sense.
I said I'm "not sure" if the issue of false rape allegations is relevant, and I'm not sure because I generally think that anything that moves the onus away from the prosecution and onto the defence is a bad thing. I know the law hasn't changed, and that this is only guidance relating to existing laws, but clearly the intended effect is to change how they are dealt with in court, no? Currently, there seems to be very little responsibility placed on the defendant to prove they had consent... and the intended change is that defendants will now have to argue their cases that they had consent. I don't really see how anyone could not think this is moving (if even slightly) away from the defendant being thought of as innocent and towards them being thought of as guilty-until-they-explain-themselves-in-a-way-that-convinces-the-jury. I'm not saying the change is a bad thing, by the way, just that I can understand why some other posters are concerned about how this affects the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.
Clearly men should be questioned. But they also have the right to remain silent. Adverse inferences can be made by a defendants silence, but there are limits to this; nobody can be convicted based on silence alone. What if the defendant refuses to speak at all at a trial? I could see this becoming more commonplace if the trend moves towards grilling defendants. How do we reconcile the two issues? If someone uses their right to remain silent, then they cannot prove they had consent, (but since the burden is on the prosecution) we are back to square one.
On another note. People are saying that "innocent men have nothing to worry about", and whilst I would tend to agree, that really misses the point. Whilst I think it's incredibly unlikely that a woman who consented to sex would report a rape, because it could happen theoretically, the law and it's guidance need to be robust enough to account for such situations. So all in all, I think a lot of the hostility towards people who bring up the issue is really unwarranted.
And finally, what is with all the hostility on this forum anyway? I've been lurking for a while and it seems that if someone doesn't agree with the attitudes of a core clique of posters then they face a barrage of abuse. I don't think that's any way to act no matter what someone else's opinion is. Probably against forum rules, etc.