The proposal to allow alleged victims of rape to testify via pre-recorded video without having to face cross-examination - is deeply worrying

The proposal, announced earlier this week by the Ministry of Justice, to allow alleged victims of rape to have their cross examination recorded before a trial, is deeply worrying.

The theory is that by sparing alleged victims the ordeal of the courtroom, women will be protected from intimidation or cruel questioning — encouraging more victims to come forward.

That’s all very well, and I would never want to discourage women from seeking justice.

But rape is a uniquely heinous crime — which is why it must be tried with all the rigour the law has to muster. All the facts must be laid bare and examined forensically if the jury is to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. If the prosecution cannot cross-examine an alleged victim in person, how can they be expected to do this?

In English law, you are innocent until proven guilty. By allowing video testimony, you are introducing the presumption of guilt and placing the onus on the defence to prove innocence.

Because allowing a victim to present a pre-recorded testimony is bound to prejudice the jury. How could it not? The very fact that someone could be so psychologically traumatised as to be unable to attend court — and not only that, to be extended the same kinds of protections usually reserved for children — will inevitably lend an element of ‘no smoke without fire’ to the proceedings.

In the minds of the jurors, who are only human, the person allegedly responsible for this state of affairs will have the stench of guilt about him before a single shred of evidence has been presented.

Liz Truss — who rightly prides herself on being Britain’s first female Lord Chancellor — must know this.

So something tells me this is about more than helping victims of rape. There is an obvious political dimension to these proposed changes.

Firstly, I detect the whiff of cost-saving. Trial by video is likely to be a darn sight cheaper than the full silk.

More disturbing, however, is the suspicion that the department has been got at by hard-line feminist pressure groups, long-time advocates of softening the law for alleged victims. Their fingerprints are all over this one. And whether through a desire to please, or simply as a direct result of pressure, the Government have fallen straight into their trap.

Liz Truss (pictured) rightly prides herself on being Britain’s first female Lord Chancellor

They are actually contemplating re-writing English law to suit the agenda of a minority of swivel-eyed harpies who think that patting a woman on the bottom should earn you ten years’ hard labour.

I am under no illusion that the system as it stands is perfect. In the past women have been treated appallingly under cross-examination during rape trials.

But that is not the fault of the law per se. It is the fault of those who implement the law: of the antiquated judges who think that women in short skirts are ‘asking for it’, of defence barristers who overstep the boundaries.

All these problems need to be addressed and I would expect nothing less from Truss.

But all these new measures do is transfer the injustice from one side of the scales to another. Alleged victims of rape already enjoy anonymity, a right that is denied any man accused. Because of this, many innocent men — and every week it seems we hear of another case — have been branded monsters, their lives ruined.

If these proposals become reality, it will be open season. Worse still, they will enshrine in English law that old ultra-feminist line: that all men are rapists until proven otherwise.

Martin McGuiness Martin McGuiness was a family man, they say. How true. He only killed other people’s children. Advertisement

This blonde will haunt Wills

Australian model Sophie Taylor, — beautiful, lithe, blonde, bronzed, 24 — is for most ordinary women what the late great Nora Ephron would have called ‘your basic nightmare’.

For Prince William, who was pictured in various stages of advanced refreshment in her company, she may turn out to be a recurring one.

If I know anything about wronged wives, they may forgive — but they rarely forget.

Australian model Sophie Taylor, — beautiful, lithe, blonde, bronzed, 24 — is for most ordinary women what the late great Nora Ephron would have called ‘your basic nightmare’

Tatler magazine has come up with a stupendous list of words that only the truly posh use. It includes ‘bins’ for binoculars and ‘rather’ as in ‘Do I think the Marquess of Douro is handsome? Rather!’

But my absolute favourite is ‘slut’, from its original meaning of slovenly, as in: ‘Do brush your hair, dear, or everyone will think you’re a frightful slut’.

Not sure how that would go down in the playground of my daughter’s London comprehensive, but I’m sure the results would be most entertaining.

Since last year, Britain has risen from No. 23 to No. 19 in the World Happiness rankings. Oh dear. Those Remoaners are going to have to try harder.

Fonda shocking at 79

Jane Fonda is one of Hollywood’s more subversive stars, but her gleeful revelation this week that she researched her next role by trying out a range of sex toys was pretty outrageous even for her.

She even pulled an alarming purple affair out of its box live on TV and waved it about.

There can be no doubt that, at 79, she is living proof of the vibrancy of the older woman.

I’ve long believed that the human race is getting more attractive. Witness the lovely Emma Johnson the Oxford student whose delectable features (and fearsome brain) have made her a star on University Challenge.

But all of the show’s contestants seem ridiculously good-looking to me these days, compared to the bespectacled balls of hair and acne we used to see.

Is this proof we’re now a nation of beauties? Or just an age thing, like policemen getting younger?

Witness the lovely Emma Johnson the Oxford student whose delectable features (and fearsome brain) have made her a star on University Challenge

I used to enjoy Red Nose Day (it’s this Friday), in which stars of stage and screen lark around in pursuit of raising money for Comic Relief.

But over the 30-odd years of its existence, the founders, Lenny Henry and Richard Curtis, have grown into frightful virtue-signalling bores.

And, as we all know, it’s impossible to be silly when you’re taking yourself so seriously.

Comic Relief? It will be — just as soon as it’s over.

Oh, keep your hair on!

After Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon stepped out sporting new haircuts, the cry went up from the knee-jerk brigade: if they were men, would anyone have noticed or cared?

Oh, do come off it — if they were men, they would barely have noticed or cared.

For a man, getting a haircut is about as exciting as a new bathroom plug.

For a woman, by contrast, getting a haircut is a major psychological event, like putting on a suit of armour.

It would have been inconceivable for either of them to a) trigger Brexit or b) make (yet another) gigantic fuss about Scottish independence without at the very least getting a decent blow-dry.

The day May and Sturgeon stop caring about their hair — that’s when you want to start panicking.

Cesspit Google has to clean up its act

Supporters of the so-called free internet — i.e. one where you can watch people having their heads cut off by lunatics or enjoy unfettered access to child pornography — are fond of saying the worldwide web is like a busy road: just learn to navigate it and you’ll be fine.

I have some sympathy for that view. The internet is here to stay and we all need to learn to find our way safely around it.

That said, it’s one thing to get used to living next to a busy road, quite another to find a giant cesspit opening up in your back garden.

This, in effect, is what Google has done to us all by allowing mainstream adverts from companies such as Marks & Spencer, L’Oreal and even the Government to appear in YouTube videos promoting anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Google’s Europe boss Matt Brittin has apologised, but his words are meaningless. The real problem is that Google refuses to admit that it is a media organisation, preferring instead to style itself as a technology company and, therefore, free to abrogate responsibility for all the content it disseminates.

This is patent nonsense. Google is one giant media monopoly.

The fact that it is not already subject to the same rules (and tax burdens) as any other is one of the greatest scandals of our time.

Why are airline passengers suddenly being told they have to put electronic objects larger than an iPhone in the hold?

At least your hand luggage gets scanned. By contrast, hold items are chucked straight on to the plane.

If there is a bomb risk, surely it should be the other way round?