A couple of days ago some furore was caused by the fact that, according to a survey of one thousand people, a substantial minority of ordinary people believe that a woman’s dress, behaviour and state of drunkedness could be partly responsible for them being sexually assaulted or raped.

The survey also found that 26 per cent of adults believed that a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing. Some 22 per cent held the same view if a woman had had many sexual partners. Similarly, 30 per cent said that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk.

Women’s rights groups were unimpressed:

Vera Baird, MP, who heads the Fawcett Society’s Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System, said: “We tend to blame the low conviction rate on failures in the police and judicial systems. But if juries are thinking like this, then improving the procedures is not going to make much difference. The attitudes in this survey are glib and outdated. They implicitly mean that the guy can’t help himself.”

Did the survey actually reveal that people believed men who raped should be exonerated for their crimes if their victim was drunk or wearing scanty clothes? I’m not sure that it did.

For the record, I believe if a girl dresses revealingly - that is, sexually - and drinks herself silly then she inevitably becomes much more vulberable to those men who would prey on women in her state. One of the reasons I would want my own daughter not to behave that way is simply for her own safety.

Does this mean she deserves to be assaulted? No, not one little bit. Does this mean I think the man who rapes a girl in these circumstances is less of a rapist? Not at all. He is 100% a rapist and 100% guilty of rape - and should be imprisoned accordingly. But only a fool believes that if a woman dresses alluringly and behaves provocatively that no man will be allured and provoked. And a couple will act on that provocation regardless of the damge done to the girl. This is life and life isn’t politically correct. To deny that a woman can increase the chances of making herself a target of men who prey on women is mindless - and it’s a betrayal of responsibility.

Then today the various media report on a court case involving a very drunk college student and a possible rape. The 20 year old student was so drunk friends asked the university security guard, Ryairi Dougal, 20, to walk her back to the halls of residence. The pair had sex in the hallway leading to her room. The girl - who remembers nothing of the incident - didn’t even know she’d had sex until two days after the event when Mr Dougal himself said that it had happened.

She further admits she was too drunk to remember whether or not she had agreed to sex.

Now if Mr Dougal raped her he’s a pretty lousy human being and only the severest punishment is sufficient for this crime. But how does anybody know whether the girl was willing or not when even the girl can’t remember? And how, then, can Mr Dougal be found guilty of a crime that the victim doesn’t recall as even happening?

According to The Independent, the girl’s reasoning that she must have been raped is this:

During the trial the student told the court: “If I had wanted to sleep with him I would have taken the few steps to my bedroom.”

Then again, if he’d been genuinely raping her then, in her apparent semi-conscious state getting her to her room and then doing the deed in private would have been an easy matter - and a far safer bet.

It was actually the prosecutor, Huw Rees, who abandoned the case. Mr Rees was quoted by the BBC thus:

“The prosecution has taken stock, in light of the evidence revealed in cross examination,” said Huw Rees.

“The question of consent is an essential part of the case. Drunken consent is still consent.

“She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecution’s case.”

With that, the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

Labour’s Vera Baird, MP had something to say on this case too. According to The Independent she said about the judge:

“He is wrong, there is no doubt about that, it is a dreadful error,” she said.

“The judge is utterly and totally wrong, he needs to be spoken to and sent on some re-training.

“This is a dreadful outcome because women will now think they cannot have a single glass of wine - I think this is going to put women off coming forward again and again.”

Now quite what re-training the judge needs I’m not sure. If the prosecution decides there’s not enough evidence to go ahead - silly stuff like, the girl doesn’t know what happened and there’s no evidence a crime had been committed - then there’s no case, surely?

Does Ms Baird want the defendent to be imprisoned anyway? Should the jury find him guilty just for the hell of it?

The girl cannot recall refusing consent so we must assume Mr Dougal’s innocence. Probably it is only Mr Dougal knows the truth of the case. But until Mr Blair and his various neo-con friends get their way in the UK you will be innocent until proven guilty.

Even the lamentings of Ms Baird cannot alter the fact that Mr Dougal is innocent until shown to be otherwise and imprisoning him because it would be politically correct to do so would be as serious a crime as the rape that we don’t even know took place.