Ptkay, I think you may be confused about the method that gyroplanes go about their business.
You are correct that gyroplanes are always "in autorotation." But! They are "in autorotation" with the disk tilted way up. (Look at a side shot photograph of just about any gyro in flight.) If the horizontal thrust fails, then the aircraft will (ta da!) slow down due to the tremendous drag of the rotor. Keeping the disk tilted up will simply cause an ever-decreasing decay of rpm. You simply *cannot* expect a gyro without an engine to glide in a level (cabin) attitude.
So what I probably should have said was that to acheive a stabilized autorotation, the disk must be brought to a level attitude. And yes, the only way of doing this is by lowering the nose. Without horizontal thrust from the engine, and without lateral thrust from a tail rotor, unloading the rotor disk might not be such a drastic event. In fact, in the dim recesses of my mind is a statement from a certain Shawn Coyle that you can't get into negative-G in a stabilized auto - although maybe that's not quite correct.
Bottom line is, the rotor needs to be level (or even maybe a degree or two nose down) and you better do what it takes to get it there, even if the sight picture out the front looks uncomfortable. At "high speed" cruise, it won't take such a big push. During a low-altitude engine failure in a high-power/low-airspeed climb, you better get the nose down NOW. Yes, pushing forward on the stick of any autorotating rotor will cause a reduction in rpm. So you're in one of those damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situations.
If RAF gyros have a high accident rate (and honestly I have not studied gyro accidents, so I cannot verify your statement), then I would ask how many of those accidents are due to material failure? For this is the important question. Gyros generally don't fail their pilots; pilots fail their gyros.
Virtually ALL gyroplanes with rear-mounted engines suffer from a thrust/pitch-coupling. True, the RAF's engine is mounted rather high due to the large prop. But because of the "soft-in-plane" design of the mast (to borrow a phrase from Bell), the effects of power-on/power-off are reduced - at least, that what the high-time RAF guys tell me.
There are also various horizontal stab designs. I've seen a wide one mounted down low on the aft keel (with winglets even!). And most of the RAF's now seem to come with a trimmable stab just behind the cabin and above the engine.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that gyro engines - as good as they are - are not inherently reliable...at least not in the way we've come to expect from a certified Lycoming or Continental engine. All non-certified engines are adaptations of engines from other, non-aviation uses (e.g. Subaru). This must be kept in mind by the pilot: The engine could literally quit at any time. The problem comes with the way gyros are typically operated, which is to say down low, close to the ground and often downwind.
Gyros are not inherently unsafe; they just have peculiar flight characteristics of which the successful gyro pilot must be aware. They are, after all, experimental aircraft and there are reasons why we call them that.