Not sure that would class as 'rape' under UK law. Isn't sex with an underage person a completely different offence?

Statutory rape.

Only if they are under 13, which was specifically not the case mentioned.

The problem is in the reporting of course, that is the reporting in the media, it makes a very nice soundbite if you use the word "rape" without explaining the circumstances in each of the five, yes just five cases out of 29,000 that were dealt with by caution - five cases are very simple to examine and explain in a paragraph but doing so would spoil the thrust of the article which is to criticise the practice rather than explain it.

A simple statement from The Met would put the story to bed, its obvious that there is no systematic dismissal of every rape case by means of dealing with it as a caution, it obvious that there are strict guidelines as to when cautions can be used in rape cases, its quite probable that the decisions aren't even being made by police officers at all, but none of this is reported by the media because being sensible about issues will not sell newspapers and TV channels.

^^ this ^^

It is viewed as not just a crime against the state but a crime against what is probably the most important foundation that underpins the state.

In the 1970s a mate of mine worked for Security Express. One particular contract they operated was to return used banknotes to the Bank of England for destruction. This involved collecting sacks of notes from individual banks, collating them into cages and trucking them back to the BoE for incineration. These notes were literally stuffed into bin bags and wads of notes would spill out onto the floor. My mate, over a period of months, managed to "pick up" over £30k of this "unwanted" cash and redistribute it to various retailers and holiday companies.

It was only a matter of time before he was caught and he was charged, and pleaded guilty to the theft. Before passing a custodial sentence of only 6 months, the judge was scathing in his criticism of Security Express, even suggesting they remove the word "Security" from their title. He also said that if the money had not belonged to Treasury, he would've been less inclined to order a custodial sentence but the fact that it impacted on money supply (however insignificant in the grand scheme), was the deciding factor. So it wasn't the amount involved or even the crime itself, it was who the money belonged to that determined the sentence.

Chris Huhne was a high-profile figure in our legislature, he had input into the formulation and delivery of laws on the statute books. He showed clear contempt for the law and between them, he and his then wife belived themselves above the very laws he was supposed to guard. A custodial sentence probably wasn't necessary but it was a clear case of "justice beeing seen to be done".

In the case of consensual sex between a girl just below 16 and a boy just past his sixteenth birthday?

Perhaps you could offer an example of when you think it's appropriate to deal with rape by way of a caution.

Right, well apparently, the term isn't used in UK law, but the concept is sex with anyone who is underage.

I do recall the prosecution (in Wales, IIRC), a few years ago, of a 15-year-old male for having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. She wasn't prosecuted. He was put on the Sex Offenders' Register.

I would imagine it's when all the evidence has been gathered & considered and the CPS has come back with a zero chance of getting a conviction

It's not, though. In the UK, it's only classed as rape if the person is less than 13 years of age. It's obviously still an offence to have (consensual) sex with a person who is aged between 13 and 15, but the offence is not rape.

In order to be able to give a caution, the perpetrator must have to admit their guilt. If a person confesses to having raped another person, I'd imagine the chances of a successful conviction would be pretty good.

It's a matter or proportion. I didn't suggest they not be found guilty nor that they were not sanctioned in some way. I suggest when we lock them up for that yet issue cautions as reported in article I linked to then the law [iwill[/i be held in contempt by its citizens.

It's not just the sentencing either. It's the effort and expense that went into it all in comparison to the crimes being let off with a caution.

No, mainly because I don't possess any of the facts appertaining to this careless bit of reporting and I suspect that the reporter didn't either or didn't care to ask the very relevant follow-on question.

I'll make one up for you if you like though - a male is accused of rape by a female who he has been in a relationship with, he denies it stating it was consensual, the CPS opinion is that it will be one word against the other in court and put it to the accused that he can accept a caution with no record on the sex offenders list, or take his chance in court.

There, I've made that up completely and am not even sure if its a valid example, but its plausible, the truth is that it will have been done after careful consideration by the agencies concerned and isn't just some copper pushing a file across his desk and saying "Oh I can't be d with this, give him a bloody caution, I'm off home".

It's not entirely unknown for an "innocent" party to be "persuaded" that it would be simpler to cop a caution than face the prospect of trial with all the attendant publicity and stigma

Not to mention the fact that some people who have been raped or sexually assaulted are often unwilling to go through the whole court process.