So you're saying that the "presumption of innocence" (a principle dating back millenia and upon which the entire legal framework in this country is built) is somehow a bad thing? People are innocent until proven guilty, and to suggest that this should ever not be the case is frankly stupid.
No, that's not what I said. I was picking up on Silkyman's comment about 'date rape' being "so incredibly difficult to prove - either way". Let's exaggerate and say that it's impossible
to prove — either way. Now because the burden of proof falls on the accuser, and the defendant benefits from the presumption of innocence, the crime of 'date rape' is effectively abolished.
When the odds are so heavily stacked against the accuser, there's no point in reporting the crime. This is what many rape victims already face.
There's evidence that granting anonymity to defendants would tip the balance even further in their favour. While it's awful that innocent men occasionally get accused of rape, it's worse that the vast, vast majority of men who are guilty of rape do not have to answer for their crime. The legal framework of "(presumed) innocent until proven guilty" is one of the weapons at their disposal; the non-presumption of the victim's innocence is another. The reality is that, in your-word-versus-my-word cases, for as long as the defendant is presumed to be innocent, the accuser's claim is considered unsubstantiated — ie, open to challenge and doubt.
This is exacerbated by centuries of gender stereotyping and downplaying the seriousness of rape, plus the majority-male makeup of the judicial system and (until very recently) the dismal lack of training of police officers working on rape cases.
As for people being questioned about their character in court, that again is a bedrock of the legal system, people should be able to defend themselves using whatever means are necessary, and again to suggest otherwise is a massively retrograde step. And by retrograde I mean taking us back to some time between the Bronze and Iron ages.
The UK already disallows evidence in sexual offence trials where the objective is "impugning the credibility of the complainant as a witness
". However, as I understand it there have been repeated problems with the interpretation of this law.