A RAPE victim’s mother slammed a “dinosaur” barrister who reckoned men should not be found guilty of rape if a woman only consented to sex because she was drunk.

David Osborne, 71, whose blog – ‘She was gagging for it’ – sparked widespread outrage in 2015, said many men support his comments.

In his blog, the married father-of-four, from Combe Florey, wrote: “I have always found it distasteful and unattractive the suggestion that as the victim was blind drunk she was therefore unable to give her consent to sex, or more to the point, she gave her consent which she would not have given had she been sober.

“In my book, consent is consent, blind drunk or otherwise, and regret after the event cannot make it rape.”

In a passage which was later deleted, he also wrote: “I have a very simple solution which I hope you will agree is fair.

“If the complainant (I do not refer to her as the victim) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, when she was ‘raped’, this provides the accused with a complete defence.

“End of story and a victory for fairness, moderation and common sense!”

But the mother of a young woman raped when she was sober told the County Gazette: “It’s the 21st Century. People have to learn you cannot get away with taking advantage of women.

“I’m not condoning the heavy drinking and drug taking culture in this country but what kind of a dinosaur is this lawyer if he thinks it’s alright for a man to have his way with a woman because she’s not in full control?

“This is an open invitation for any man to go on the prowl in pubs and bars looking for women who are worse for wear.”

Sarah Green, director of End Violence Against Women, said: “It is ridiculous. He is suggesting the opposite of the law.

“The justice system exists to punish and deter perpetrators.”

Speaking to the County Gazette, Mr Osborne said: “A drunken consent is still a valid consent – it’s no good regretting what you did the next day.

“The danger about drunken consent is that there’s a possibility it will be for the defendant to prove to a jury that consent was fairly given, rather than- the prosecution to prove it wasn’t.

That’s a dangerous road to go down and changes the standards of the burden of proof.”